1951-11-05

RAILWAY LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Halton) presented the first report of the special committee on railway legislation and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Wright be substituted for that of Mr. Gillis on the special committee on railway legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


REGISTERED PHARMACISTS


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Are registered pharmacists in charge of all defence dispensaries?
2.	Are all registered men so employed in good standing with their respective provincial pharmaceutical associations?
3.	Are all armed service district medical stores under the charge and supervision of a registered pharmacist?
4.	If not, what are the exceptions?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Maintaining good standing with the provincial pharmaceutical associations is not mandatory for pharmacists in the armed forces, but is the personal concern of the individual.
3.	Yes.
4.	Not applicable.



RADIO RECEIVING SETS AND LICENCES

Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	How many radio receiving sets are there in use in Canada?
2.	How many home radio receiving sets are there in use in Canada?
3.	How many homes in Canada, by federal constituencies, have radio receiving sets?
4.	How many automobile radio receiving sets are there in use in Canada, by federal constituencies?
5.	Is there a licence fee for radio receiving sets? If so, what is such fee?
6.	How many radio receiving set licences have been sold in Canada during 1950, and to date in 1951, by federal constituencies?
7.	How many licences have been sold for home radio receiving sets in Canada during the year 1950 and to date in 1951, by federal constituencies?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1, 2, 3 and 4. No records maintained.
5. Yes. (i) Commercial receiving licence- fee $2.00 (for reception of commercial radio communications); (ii) private receiving licence-fee $2.50 (for broadcast reception by electric sets and automobile sets); (iii) special private receiving licence-fee $2.00 (for broadcast reception by home battery sets).
6 and 7. Licences are not recorded by federal constituencies. The following statement shows issues by provinces.
Licences Issued for Private Receiving
Stations in		Automobiles
	1950-51	1951-52*
Newfoundland 	743	862Prince Edward Island	475	490Nova Scotia 	5,751	6,764New Brunswick '	4.924	5,051Quebec 	46,851	43,703Ontario	32,793	34,101Manitoba 	10,492	11,162Saskatchewan	26,986	28,604Alberta 	21,842	24,570British Columbia	5,750	11,190Yukon and Northwest Territories 	6	6156,613	166,503Licences	Issued forPrivate and Special	Private Receiving	Stations in Dwellings	1950-51	1951-52*Newfoundland 	43,740	43,112Prince Edward Island	10,387	9,881Nova Scotia 	99,566	91,154New Brunswick ....	69,494	60,068Quebec 	588,151	571,647Ontario	675,219	625,397Manitoba 	114,879	112,118Saskatchewan 	137,084	130,551Alberta 	135,503	122,188British Columbia	181,392	170,753Yukon and Northwest Territories 	407	2962,055,822	1,937,1651950-51	1951-52Total licences issued	2,212,435	2,103,668**To September 30th, 1951



QUESTIONS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government received representations at any time since January 1, 1950, calling for the establishment of a 40-hour week in industries which come under federal labour jurisdiction?
2.	If so, from whom have such representations been received?
3.	Has consideration been given to same and with what results?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Mr. George Burt, director, region 7, United Automobile, Aircraft, Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Windsor. Letter dated July 4, 1951, to the Minister of Labour, referring to the June 25 news release of the Department of Labour on the "Normal Work Week in Manufacturing Continuing to Decrease in 1950" and requesting the government to consider legislation "to institute the 40-hour week at the next session of the House of Commons", (b) The Canadian Congress of Labour (1951). Among additional recommendations made in its brief presented to the federal government on April 11, 1951, the congress requested "The establishment of a national minimum wage of 85 cents per hour and a maximum work week of 40 hours", (c) United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Toronto. Petition from 16 members of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, employed at the Canadian General Electric Royce works, Toronto, dated January 30, 1951; (d) Mr. N. Allison, executive secretary, Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, Kitchener. Circular letter informing the Department of Labour of the passing of a resolution favouring the establishment of the 40-hour week which was adopted at a convention of the district No. 6 council of the union held a short time prior to the date of the letter, which was October 24, 1950; (e) The Canadian Congress of Labour (1950); In a memorandum on unemployment supplementary to its brief presented to the federal government on March 31, 1950, under section 14(h), the congress recommends that "The government should do all it can to encourage the adoption of the 40-hour week"; (f) The Trades and Labour Congress (1950). Under "Improvement in Conditions of Government Employees" the congress requested "that the principle of the 40-hour week be established
[Mr. Benidickson.l	I
for all employees in the corporations and undertakings coming within the jurisdiction of the government" in its brief presented to the federal government on March 9, 1950.
3.	On July 24, 1951, the Minister of Labour replied to the communication of Mr. George Burt, copy below, and on August 16 the Right Hon. the Prime Minister wrote to Mr. A. R. Mosher, President of the Canadian Congress of Labour, in connection with the various representations made by the congress in its brief, and in connection with the recommendation for "The establishment of a national minimum wage of 85 cents per hour and a maximum work week of 40 hours" advised that "the matter of minimum wages and the maximum work week is within the jurisdiction of the provinces".
Ottawa. July 24, 1951
Dear Mr. Burt:
I am interested in your observations contained in your letter of July 4, concerning our recent news release on the normal work week in manufacturing, based on our last annual survey in October, 1950.
The results of this survey, as you will appreciate, refer to the normal work week rather than to the actual hours worked. In October, 1950, the average actual weekly hours worked in Canadian manufacturing, according to the regular monthly employment and payroll survey conducted by the dominion bureau of statistics, were 42-9. This average is affected by variations in hours of work from week to week caused by such factors as unpaid holidays, absenteeism, and overtime.
It is rather significant, I think, that the changes in the average actual hours worked in the manufacturing industry in Canada during recent years have not varied as much as have the normal hours; in fact, during most months of the past year the average actual hours worked have shown increases over the same months in the previous year, whereas normal hours have continued to decline.
These increases in actual hours have, of course, occurred due in large part to our efforts to meet the demands of our stepped-up preparedness program as well as to maintain, wherever possible, our civilian production.
You suggest that workers are more productive when they work shorter hours. Kxperience has indicated that this has been the case when hours of work have been excessively high, as for example, in the British isles during world war I and II. On the other hand, I think it is clear that a point would be reached in reducing hours, below which total production would decline, that is with the same number of workers.
This raises a number of questions which the Department of Labour, in co-operation with other departments, has been looking into in the field of productivity. We do know that changes in produc-

tivity are due to the influence of many factors and we are attempting to develop more accurate measurements of these changes and the reasons for them in Canadian industries.
I am sure you will appreciate the fact that the benefits of increased productivity can be shared with labour in a number of different ways; reduced hours of work is only one of these ways. In any event, at this time when increased production is highly important, both from the standpoint of implementing the preparedness program and from the standpoint of helping to remove inflationary pressures, I am not sure that too much emphasis should be placed on reduced hours of work.
There is also the fact that while there is no overall shortage of labour in Canada at the moment, the labour market nevertheless has tightened considerably in recent months, especially in industries where defence production is getting into full swing. With the possibility that manpower may become tighter during the coming year, it would not appear too appropriate to suggest reductions in hours of work today when they might have to be increased tomorrow.
In dealing with any national objective, such as you suggest, it is rather important, too, to keep in mind those industries where a 40-hour week would not be realistic. In many seasonal industries, for example, it is difficult under our Canadian conditions to operate on the basis of a restricted work week.
Apart from the above, the authority of parliament to enact legislation of a general nature in respect of hours of work in industry is very limited since this subject matter falls under the head of civil rights and thus primarily the subject matter is one within provincial legislative competence.
I am very much obliged for your observations in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) Milton F. Gregg
Mr. George Burt,
Director, Region 7, UAW-CIO.,
1568 Ouellette Avenue,
Windsor, Ontario.


COMPENSATION FOR VOLUNTARY CIVIL DEFENCE WORKERS
Mr. Laing:: Is the government giving any consideration to ensuring compensation for voluntary civil defence workers injured in the pursuit of their duties?


Mr. McCusker:: Yes.


HOUSING
Arthur Laing: In the Fraserview housing scheme, Vancouver, directed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (a) How many houses are completed and occupied; (b) how many completed but not yet occupied; (c) how many still under construction; (d) what has been the average cost per house;
Questions
(e) what has been the total cost to date of land servicing; (f) what is estimated total cost of land servicing; (g) on basis of present completions, what is the sum paid to the city of Vancouver under the tax agreement; (h) how many houses were contemplated in the original plan; (i) will the government review the possibility of completing this scheme; (j) what is the average monthly rentals of houses now occupied?


Mr. Winters:: (a) 606. In addition 9 existing houses have been incorporated in the project, (b) None, (c) None, (d) $5,893.34. (e) $1,924,663.68. (f) $2,707,935. (g) It is estimated that the total payment for the year 1951 will be $31,158. (h) The agreement between the city of Vancouver and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation covers a minimum of 1,000 houses, (i) Yes. (j) $39.71.


DEFENCE CONTRACTS AWARDED IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES, ONTARIO AND QUEBEC SINCE JULY 1, 1951
Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	What defence contracts, if any, have been awarded by the Department of Defence Production in each of the prairie provinces, monthly, since July 1. 1951?
2.	What defence contracts have been awarded in Ontario and Quebec, monthly, during the same period?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: At the last session a question similar in form to this one was asked, and at that time it was pointed out that it is not possible to give accurate figures in answer to this type of question. It was pointed out that lists of the contracts awarded are published each two weeks, and these lists of course are available to any member at any time. There is this weakness in them, that the address shown of the contractor is merely a mailing address and may or may not give an indication as to where the contract is being carried out.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND


Mr. Kickham:: 1.	What location are the offices administering the Canadian Farm Loan Act in the province of Prince Edward Island?
2.	What are the names of persons employed, their positions and respective salaries?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	The offices of the Canadian farm loan board for Prince Edward Island are located in the Palmer Electric building, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
2.	The branch office of the Canadian farm loan board for Prince Edward Island is in charge of Mr. C. M. Williams, branch manager, with a staff of three persons. The board

Questions
is an independent corporation carrying on a commercial operation in a competitive field, and engages its own staff and pays its own administrative costs, and it is considered to be not in the public interest to disclose details concerning individual members of its staff and their salaries.



PRIME MINISTER'S RESIDENCE


Mr. Fulton:: X. What has been the total cost to date of the official residence at 24 Sussex street?
2.	Of this total, how much was for (a) original purchase price; (b) structural alterations; (c) furniture and furnishings; (d) landscaping and improving the grounds?
3.	Were any contracts for the work or materials covered in part 2 (b), (c) and (d) let on tender?
4.	If so, which ones, who were the successful tenderers and what were the amounts of all tenders received for the particular contract?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	$450,136.56 (This figure does not include $140,000 paid to the owners for acquisition of the property before decision was made to establish a residence for the Prime Minister).
2.	(a)	$140,000,	(b)	$284,220.56,	(c)
$108,937.17, (d) $56,978.83.
3.	(b) No-Work was let on fixed fee cost plus basis to general contractor A. I. Garvock. (c) No. (d) No-Work was done by federal district commission with exception of iron fence on which public tenders were called and work awarded to lower tenderer, Modem Forge Reg'd. $5,862.90. The other tender was from the Ottawa Iron Works, $11,976.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



SASKATOON TERMINAL ELEVATOR


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What is the capacity of the government terminal elevator in Saskatoon for (a) wheat; (b) oats; (c) barley?
2.	How much was in storage in said elevator in each month, commencing May 1, 1951, and to date?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	The	official rated	capacity of theCanadian	government	interior	terminal
elevator at Saskatoon is 5,500,000 bushels for wheat, oats and/or barley.
2.	The total of all grains in store in the
Canadian	government	interior	terminal
elevator at Saskatoon	on dates indicated,
commencing May 1st, 1951, is as follows:
May 1st, 1951, 4,433,205 bus.; June 1st, 1951, 4,381,575 bus.; July 1st, 1951, 4,367,042 bus.; Aug. 1st, 1951, 4,492,339 bus.; Sept. 1st, 1951, 3,809,666 bus.; Oct. 1st, 1951, 4,303,421 bus; Nov. 1st, 1951, 4,353,592 bus.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Has the government adopted ways and means of enabling smaller firms to obtain subcontracts on defence production orders?
2.	If so (a) what plans, if any, have been put into effect; (b) when were they made effective?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) A small industries division has been set up in the production branch of the Department of Defence Production, having the following functions:
To gather and distribute information on prime contracts so that potential subcontractors may approach the prime contracting firms for possible subcontracts.
To make available to prime contractors information as to industrial capacities, particularly of the smaller firms.
To ensure that the smaller firms are properly listed for invitations to tender on all types of products they are making.
(b) April 1, 1951.



TREES FOR NEWSPRINT REQUIREMENTS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many Canadian trees are being used annually in the manufacture of newsprint?
2.	Is there an estimate as to how many trees will be required to meet estimated newsprint requirements for (a) 1955; (b) 1960? If so, what are such estimates?
3.	What plans are there for reforestation to replace the trees referred to above?
4.	To what extent are such plans being implemented?
5.	How are any such reforestation programs being financed?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	No record is kept of the number of trees cut. Approximately 55 million trees, 9 inches in diameter at breast height and 50 feet tall, would be required to make 5,318,988 tons of newsprint, being Canada's production in 1950.
2.	No.
3.	The forest resources belong to and are administered by the provinces, and there are no over-all statistics on annual replacement. However, the plans of the provincial governments and forest industries, in so far as they are known, would indicate that a total annual output of some 46 million trees for reforestation purposes may be expected from forest nurseries in Canada in the course of the next few years. In addition there is natural regrowth, which produces a vast number of trees but for which accurate estimates are lacking.

4.	According to the latest available information the current annual rate of planting for reforestation purposes in Canada is approximately 33 million trees.
5.	Reforestation programs are paid for largely by provincial governments, a number of which, in addition to their own planting operations, supply nursery stock free of charge to private owners of land. Some planting is being undertaken by forest industries at their own expense.
Under the Canada Forestry Act, in order to stimulate reforestation, the federal government will pay one fifth of the cost to the provincial governments of:
(a)	Reforesting unoccupied crown land, provided the province's reforestation program for such lands is expanded.
(b)	Establishing new forest nurseries.



IMPORT OP FILBERT NUTS

Mr. Cruickshank:: 1.	What was the total amount of filbert nuts imported into Canada (a) during 1950; (b) to October 1, 1951?
2.	What duty, if any, was paid per ton during the same periods?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. Filbert nuts are not separately classified for statistical purposes and there are no records that would show the imports of these nuts.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the practice of making family allowance application forms available at hospitals been discontinued?
2.	If so, when was this action taken, and where are such forms now obtainable?
3.	Is consideration being given to make family allowance application forms again available at hospitals?
4.	Is an applicant for the family allowance for a new-born child, if the applicant is already receiving the allowance for another child or other children, required to give the number on the cheque already being received when applying for the allowance for the new-born child? If so, when did this practice begin?
5.	Is the requirement noted in question No. 4 resulting in registrations, in some cases, not being made or accepted until the month after the month in which the child is born?
6.	In such cases, does the payment of the allowance start with the month in which the child is born or with the subsequent month?
7.	If this is resulting in applicants losing a month's allowance to which they are otherwise entitled, is consideration being given to making the necessary changes so that in all cases payment can begin with the month in which the child is born?
Questions


Mr. McCusker:: 1. No.
2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.
4.	From early in 1945 when registration for family allowances first commenced, the supplementary application form for an additional child requested an applicant to quote the family allowances account number under which allowances were already being paid. This number appears immediately following the payee's name on the family allowances cheque. It is in the applicant's own interest to give this information as it enables the regional director of family allowances to locate the account more quickly and thus to expedite payment on behalf of the additional child. However, if the applicant does not know the account number, the form may be forwarded without this information.
5 and 6. There is no question but that a supplementary application is acceptable whether or not the family allowances account number is given.
If the application form is received in the office of the regional director within thirty days of the child's birth, payment of the allowance becomes effective the month following the month of the birth. If, however, the application is not received within the thirty-day period, payment begins with the month following the month in which the application is received.
It is possible that in a few cases registration is not being made within thirty days of the child's birth because the applicant delays submitting a registration form until such time as the account number is available.
7. As indicated above, -cases of delayed applications are already small in number and are continually on the decrease. Regional directors make every endeavour to acquaint the public with application requirements and do their utmost to expedite payments of allowances. Also, as indicated above, payment of allowances never begins with the month of birth, but, in accordance with the act, in the month following the month of birth. Arrangements are already under way to amend the supplementary application form in such a way as to indicate that its submission should not be held up if the serial number of the account is not known to the applicant.



REGULATIONS FOR PARCELS TO NAVAL OFFICERS AND RATINGS

Mr. Lennard:: 1. Is there a limit on the size and weight of parcels sent from Canada to naval officers and ratings serving on ships of the Canadian navy in the Korean theatre of war?

Questions
2. Do the same regulations apply to shipments from Canada to officers and ratings of the British navy serving in the same theatre of war?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 

WOOL-PURCHASES BY WOOL PURCHASING BOARD

Mr. Catherwood:: 1.	How many pounds of wool have been purchased by the wool purchasing board, since it was set up under the Department of Trade and Commerce?
2.	In what countries were purchases made?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	8,512,872 pounds.
2.	Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States.
Canada's contribution to Colombo plan


Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	What was the amount of Canada's contribution to the Colombo plan for the current fiscal year?
2.	(a) Which commonwealth countries participated in Canada's contribution; (b) to what amount; (c) for what projects?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	$25 million.
2.	(a) India and Pakistan, tb) Tentative allocation: India, $15 million; Pakistan, $10 million; (c) For India; $10 million for wheat; $5 million unallocated as yet but under negotiation. For Pakistan: Projects tentatively selected1 subject to domestic availabilities- (i) Some equipment for a colonization project in the Thai area of the Punjab in collaboration with the international bank (e.g. dump trucks, motors, pumps, etc.); (ii) Cement plant for Thai colonization project; (iii) Experimental livestock farm (jointly with Australia and New Zealand); (iv) Power pumps for irrigation project in East Bengal; (v) Harbour equipment and railway and marine workshop equipment; and (vi) Miscellaneous (probably chiefly electrical equipment and aluminum transmission wire).



OLD AGE SECURITY


Mr. Balcom:: Under the new federal program for old age security, what yearly saving will result for the province of Nova Scotia?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: There is no firm basis for making an estimate except actual experience when the program gets under way. However for the
[Mr. Lennard.l
purposes of the dominion-provincial conference which took place last December, an estimate was placed before the conference based on the assumption that approximately one third of the persons in the 65 to 69 year age group would prove to be eligible for old age assistance.
This percentage was raised slightly in the case of Nova Scotia because of the fact that under the existing Old Age Pensions Act Nova Scotia's ratio of old age pensioners to total population over 70 years was higher than in most of the other provinces.
On the basis of the calculation made for the purposes of the conference referred to it was estimated that Nova Scotia's expenditure under the new program in the calendar year 1952 might be as much as $556,000 less than its expenditures would be if the existing Old Age Pensions Act were to continue in operation throughout that year.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN


ALUMINUM


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	Is aluminum produced in Canada? If so, where?
2.	Is aluminum processed in Canada into cooking utensils? If so, where?
3.	Is food cooked in aluminum cooking utensils dangerous to health?



RAILWAYS-MAINTENANCE OF TRACK   EMPLOYEES

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has there been at any time, since September 1, 1951, any ruling or judgment given by the board of transport commissioners regarding the number of maintenance of way employees working on sections of track? If so, what was the date of such ruling or judgment, and what were its terms?
2.	Has the Canadian National Railways abolished any sections of track and lengthened others, for maintenance purposes, at any time since September 1, 1950. If so, how many of such sections have been abolished or added to other sections?
3.	Where sections have been lengthened, has the number of maintenance of way employees been increased accordingly?
4.	If not, have there been reductions in the total number of maintenance of way employees doing track maintenance work?



FEDERAL TAX ON WINES

Mr. Lennard:: What federal tax is levied on (a) Canadian wines; (b) imported wines?



LAKE SHORE SCHEMES-QUESTION AS TO FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION

Frank Exton Lennard: Is the government, or has it been, interested and committed financially to lake shore schemes other than the Erieau Burke drainage scheme?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all correspondence since the first day of January, 1950, to date, that has passed between the Ming Sung Industrial Company of Canada Limited, or anyone on behalf of the said company, and the Department of Finance and/or National Revenue and/or Trade and Commerce, in regard to the remission in whole, or in part, of the said company from corporation or income tax.



GRANTING OF VISAS FOR TRAVEL TO U.S.S.R., POLAND, HUNGARY AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA

John George Diefenbaker: For the complete file of correspondence respecting each and every person to whom visas were granted since the first day of January, 1950, whereby such persons were permitted to travel to (a) U.S.S.R.; (b) Poland; (c) Hungary; (d) Czechoslovakia, and including the location of the embassy which granted the visas in each case, together with a copy of all correspondence prior to the date of the issue of the passport in each case, which passed between each of the said persons and the Department of the Secretary of State.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to drop this notice, without prejudice to redrafting another motion of a similar nature.
Motion dropped.



ORDNANCE DEPOT, LONDON, ONT.    REPORT OF ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

Mr. White (Middlesex East):: For a copy of the report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in connection with the investigation carried out at central ordnance depot 27, London. Ontario.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Will the Minister of Transport say whether the amendments to the Railway Act which have been referred to a special committee on railway legislation will be applicable in the hearings of the applications by the Railway Association of Canada for freight rate increases, one of which is to be heard on November 12? If not, will the minister request the board of transport commissioners to postpone the hearing of all such applications until those amendments become law?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minisler of Transport):: The hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of his question, Mr. Speaker. Before I answer it, perhaps I should clarify these applications for increases, because there has been some doubt about
Inquiries of the Ministry their status. In the first place, on December 21, 1950, the railways made an application to the board of transport commissioners for a 20 per cent increase in the freight rates. Some seven months later, namely on July 26, 1951, an interim increase of 12 per cent was granted. On November 1 of this year the railways made application for a 5 per cent increase in freight rates, and the next day, on November 2, the board postponed indefinitely the hearing of the 20 per cent application upon which an interim increase had been granted. Following that, and on the following day, November 3, the railways applied for an interim increase of 5 per cent. The board of transport commissioners has not, therefore, dealt with that application.
The question which I have received is worded somewhat differently from the one which my hon. friend asked a moment ago.


Howard Charles Green: That is because there was a further application filed after I had given notice of the question.


Lionel Chevrier: That is why I wanted to clear the air, and place the position of those applications before the house. The question is, in view of the report that new freight rate increases are being asked by the railways, will the new railway legislation be applicable to those applications? I believe the only reply that can be made to that question is this. If the house, and the committee before which this railway legislation is now, decide to approve this legislation, then the board, of necessity, will have to take cognizance of it.


Howard Charles Green: But if the hearings are held
before this bill goes through, then I presume the new terms of the Railway Act will not apply to those hearings. Is there some way in which the hearings can be held off until this bill becomes law, so that the decision will be based on the new law?


Lionel Chevrier: The best answer I can give the hon. member is that the sooner this legislation before parliament can be enacted, then the better the opportunity for the board to take cognizance of the new legislation.



QUESTION AS TO LOAN OF $10 PER ACRE ON UNTHRESHED GRAIN    ADVANCES ON STORED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. I am sorry I was not able to give him notice of it until a few moments
696	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry ago. Will the Prime Minister give consideration to the request that the dominion government co-operate with the municipalities and the provincial governments to make provision for a loan of $10 per acre on unthreshed grain, the administration of such loans to be the responsibility of the rural municipalities.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: As the hon. member said, I
received notice of his question just a moment ago, but I am in a'position to say that representations have been made from a number of sources, including the premier of Saskatchewan and the leader of the opposition in Saskatchewan, to this effect. The wheat board and the Department of Trade and Commerce are giving consideration as to what may be required to meet the unusual circumstances which have developed in the western provinces.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: As a supplementary question, may I ask whether or not a firm decision has yet been reached by the government on the advisability of making advances to farmers on grain stored on the farm?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; no firm decision has yet been made. The whole situation has been and is under serious consideration by the wheat board and the Department of Trade and Commerce. When a decision is arrived at, it will be announced in the house without its being necessary to prompt that announcement.



SHORTAGE OF BOX CARS FOR MOVEMENT FROM COUNTRY ELEVATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in connection with the serious freight car shortage in the west. What I have been asked by the various municipalities is this. To whom must complaints concerning the shortage of cars in the various localities be sent? I hope it will not be considered, Mr. Speaker, that I am prompting any favourable reaction in this regard, but it is a serious situation. I ask the minister what the situation is generally and whether there has been any improvement in the last few days, because correspondence indicates it is very critical.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would not like the hon. gentleman or anyone else to have the impression that there is shortage of equipment, because there is not.


John George Diefenbaker: No shortage of freight cars?


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member will
allow me to continue, there is not a shortage of equipment. As a matter of fact, there has been far more grain moved in this season than ever before. Before I deal with the question I should like to put on the record a few figures. For instance, shipments from country elevators in 1951 were 160 million bushels as compared with 112 million bushels last year. Unloadings at the lakehead were 109 million bushels this year, as compared with 71 million bushels last year. Shipments from the lakehead since the opening of navigation were 102 million bushels as compared with 48 million bushels last year. Churchill has received more grain and disposed of more grain this year than ever before in its history. Cars unloaded at the lakehead from August 1 to October 25 amounted to 57,910, as compared with 39,209 last year. Cars loaded at country points from August 1 to October 25 amounted to 80,580 this year, as compared with 56,529 last year. So that the position with regard to the movement of grain has been good on the whole. I must admit, however, as was admitted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day, that the allocation of cars has not been as good as we would like it to be.
I should like the hon. member to be reminded of this. In so far as these movements are concerned, the transport controller puts himself in the hands of the wheat board. The wheat board indicates to him where the wheat must go and how it must be moved. It is the responsibility of the controller to provide the equipment. As a rule he has been able to provide all the equipment. Sometimes he has fallen down and the hon. member has brought it to the attention of the house, as he did with reference to the movement from country elevators to the Pacific coast earlier in the season; but that has been righted. In so far as allocation is concerned, while it is true that allocation has not been all that it should be, the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and my assurance now is that as soon as the movement of wheat down the lakes takes place, I believe and hope that it will be possible to dispose of the movement from the farms to the country elevators.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may be allowed, I want to thank the minister for saying the responsibility for allocation rests upon the wheat board. I hope I shall be allowed to do this, because it is a matter of importance. Here is a message, a copy of which was sent to the minister and also to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on October 16, from Kandahar where there is 300,000

bushels of millable wheat, and yet this marketing point has had only six freight cars since the 1st of August. Certainly there is something wrong with the allocation. I wonder if the minister could do anything to bring the matter to the attention of the wheat board which is responsible for the allocation, and how unfair it has been.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to bring the matter to the attention of the transport controller first, so that he may take it up with the wheat board.



INFLATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Has the Prime Minister given consideration to the calling of a conference to consider ways and means of dealing with inflation as suggested by the Canadian Association of Consumers? Will the Prime Minister invite to such a conference representatives of farm organizations, cooperatives and trade unions?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall be glad to take note of the hon. member's request.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. A. Mutch (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked me in the house whether the minister had made a new statement with respect to the impact of the old age pension legislation on the war veterans allowance. At that time I promised to get him an answer. The previous Wednesday or Thursday, when the minister had made some comments in the house, he had had prepared a release for the press in connection with the matter. It had been turned over and it broke without my knowledge on the evening of Wednesday last. The story in the newspaper was somewhat garbled. In order to get the matter straight on the record I propose to read, on behalf of the minister, the statement itself, which is quite brief:
News Release
The Hon. Hugues Lapointe today announced that payments of the old age security pension to veterans in receipt of war veterans allowance and eligible for this new pension would be considered as income for the purposes of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Inquiries of the Ministry
"This will allow," Mr. Lapointe said, "the war veterans allowance board to supplement the old age security pension where the veteran's total income including the pension does not exceed the maximum provided for in the War Veterans Allowance Act, that is, $610 per annum for a single veteran and $1,100 per annum for a married veteran."
Mr. Lapointe illustrated this by stating that a single veteran now in receipt of $40.41 per month under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and with no other income, could receive $40 per month in old age pension and $10.41 per month from war veterans allowance. Similarly, a married veteran now in receipt of $70.83 per month by way of war veterans allowance, and with no other income, could receive $40 per month from old age pension and $51.56 war veterans allowance. In cases where both husband and wife are eligible for the old age pension, they could receive $80 per month by way of pension and $11.66 per month from war veterans allowance, if they have no other income.
Mr. Lapointe went on to say that the present treatment benefits available to recipients of war veterans allowance would be continued to veterans who may cease to receive war veterans allowance because they are in receipt of old age security pension.
"All veterans and their wives who have reached or will reach the age of seventy by January 1, 1952, and who have not already done so, should file applications for the new pension at once," advised Mr. Lapointe.
That is the story which had been given to the press and on which the inaccurate story in last Thursday morning's Citizen was based.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. What is the position of those recipients of war veterans allowance, 65 to 69 years of age, receiving old age assistance?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: At the moment their position is unchanged.



QUESTION AS TO INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: also should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the recipient of war veterans allowance, in so far as income for income tax purposes is concerned, be treated the same as any ordinary individual?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is a matter for the income tax department, not for me.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like an answer to the question.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: If the veteran who is in receipt of war veterans allowance receives old age pension under the new legislation, that pension is taxable income just the same as any other income. It may well be that his exemptions are such that he will be paying no income tax. But it is considered as taxable income just as if it was any other form of receipt.

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Alexander Cruickshank: I wish to ask the minister another supplementary question. As I understand it, a single individual is entitled to an exemption of $1,000. The minister will correct me if I am wrong.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the recipient of the war veterans allowance be entitled to the $1,000 exemption?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like that to be recorded.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Percy Ellis Wright: In view of the confusion which there seems to be both in the house and in the country with regard to the war veterans allowance and the old age pension, will the government reconsider their position and set up the veterans affairs committee at this session in order to deal with this matter?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I have nothing to add to the statement made by my minister on a previous occasion when this question was answered.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Nose worthy (York South): I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. Have the lending institutions accepted the government policy announced by the minister on October 16 for financing houses for defence workers, or is Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation finding it necessary to make direct loans on these houses as the minister indicated would be the case in the event of mortgage money not being available from the finance companies?
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of current discussions with the lending institutions.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: In the absence of the Minister of


Labour (Mr. Gregg) I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant. Can the parliamentary assistant say whether the minister has received representations from the carpenters' union at Winnipeg asking that certain defence projects already allotted to the Winnipeg area be proceeded with immediately, particularly in view of unemployment amongst carpenters and other building tradesmen in the Winnipeg area? Has the minister discussed the matter with his colleagues? Can these unemployed tradesmen count on this work soon?


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for sending notice of this question. In reply I may say that the minister in fact last week received the representations referred to a moment ago. The possibility of an early commencement on the defence projects mentioned in the letter of the head of the union is being explored. We expect to have a final report shortly, when the minister will gladly write to the president of the carpenters' union in Winnipeg.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the other hon. members who have preceded me in this debate in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think I would be remiss, as a member of my party, if I did not also say that we appreciate the remarks of hon. members of other parties in this house concerning the four new members who have been added to our party. I think that everyone will agree that their maiden efforts were a splendid indication of what we may expect from them as they continue in the discharge of their responsibilities as members of the House of Commons.
In view of the suggestions made by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) a few weeks ago regarding defence areas and the allocation of houses on special terms to people in those particular areas, I suggest to the government that special consideration be given to the city of Sarnia which should be designated as a defence area. In that city we have the largest refinery in the British empire, and the Polymer Corporation, the

only synthetic rubber plant in the British empire, and other allied chemical industries. I hope the government will seriously consider making it a defence area because the industrial expansion in Sarnia is so tremendous at the present time that housing is not available for many who need it. If the government could see its way clear to include Sarnia as one of those areas it would be of great benefit to many people in that particular area, which, in the event of war, or in our present state of cold war, because of the type of industry carried on there, could contribute much of what we require today, and I expect greater quantities in the days to come.
I do not intend to dwell at any great length on the matter of veterans' rights which, I think every hon. member will agree, were advanced so ably by one of our new members and supplemented by others on this side of the house. Since they have done that it is not necessary for me to go into it in detail. In view of the fact that the proposed legislation was not in the speech from the throne, it required pressure from this side of the house to induce the minister to make a statement. I am very glad to be a member of a party that forced a statement from the minister, dilatory though it was. It seemed that the government was shadow boxing with respect to veterans' rights. I say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs now that the veterans and their dependents-and I have reference particularly to the veterans now, to whom we owe a special consideration-were certainly not shadow boxing when they received the injuries that entitled them to some compensation. Since the legislation is not to be brought down until next year may I say it is quite unfortunate because these men did not have the opportunity of saying when they were to receive their injuries. They were not in a position to postpone them. As I see it, it is unfortunate that the legislation is not to be discussed at this particular session. I am quite safe in saying that the Legion and the veterans themselves, and others who have their welfare at heart, certainly have a challenge before them to see that the proposed legislation is of the right type and that no one now receiving benefits will suffer in any way because of the old age pension legislation which will be enacted within a short time.
In view of the proposal respecting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I say that now is a good time to cut out some of these nuisance taxes, more particularly since we have built up a surplus of over $500 million in five months. One of these taxes which
The Address-Mr. Murphy I shall define modestly as a bit of a nuisance is the radio licence fee. Our party has been advocating the abolition of that nuisance for quite a long time. When the legislation which is about to be submitted to the house is before us it would be a good time for the government to listen to such proposals, because I am sure if every hon. member consults his constituents he will find that they are in agreement with the abolition of the licence fee.
Within a few months some parts of Canada will have television, but it will not be available to a great many areas. In all probability there will be a licence fee for television sets. If there is a licence fee for television sets, then certainly those in the area that does not benefit from the Canadian television system should not be asked to buy any television licence. I understand that television will be available in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. As an illustration, I cannot see why we in western Ontario should be subjected to a television tax, because the only channels that are available to us-and we are on the fringe area; most parts of Ontario will not be able to get the programs-are the United States channels. Until all parts of this country are serviced by our own broadcasting system there is no reason why they should be subjected to a tax.
When I spoke in the house in the early session of this year after the increase had been made in the cigarette tax I expressed my views and said at that time that I believed the minister would be disappointed in the returns that he would get as a result of the increase in the tax on cigarettes. The records prove that conclusively. They also give evidence of the unnecessary taxes which have been imposed by this government; otherwise the huge surplus, which seems so unnecessary in these days, would not have been built up.
Some weeks ago a delegation from the tobacco area around Norfolk consisting of the Flue Cured Tobacco Growers Association appeared here in Ottawa and presented a very strong and sensible brief to the government. I am not going to take the time of the house to refer to that brief at length because it is available to any hon. member who wishes to obtain it. It contains some valuable information. The figures that I have not only reveal that the tax needs to be lowered, but show that a lesser quantity of tobacco is now going into cigarettes. I remind the house that this is an industry that some of us have followed from its infancy. It has contributed a great deal to our economy. It has opened up vast areas in some parts of the country

The Address-Mr. Murphy for very high production, and it has made some low-priced property very high-priced property. This industry has been more or less penalized in its progress and advancement. It has had to suffer many special taxes. It had to develop its own market. All of us know that only a few years ago we imported practically every pound of tobacco that we used. We did grow a little cigar tobacco in some townships in Quebec, but the tobacco that went into cigarettes, and pipe tobacco, were imported. That situation changed as our growers became more experienced and our tobacco became better for different purposes. Today in Canada we grow three kinds of tobacco which are in heavy demand. These are black, burley, and the flue-cured, which is used in cigarettes and cigarette tobacco, and in fact in other tobaccos.
There is one further point I should like to make at this time. I am sure hon. members would not wish to leave a false impression in the minds of the people with respect to the profits of the retailers and jobbers in the tobacco business. Unfortunately the impression was created that dealers in tobacco were getting enormous profits because of the price of forty or forty-two cents charged for a package of cigarettes.
Let me put on record the fact that the cost to the wholesaler today of a package of twenty cigarettes is 35.16 cents. The cost to the retailer is 37.60 cents, and the cost to the consumer is 42 cents. These figures may surprise many people, including hon. members in the house, when it is realized that the profit to the jobber or the wholesaler is now 6.48 per cent and that to the retailer is 10.4 per cent. These are exceptionally small margins of profit for people in business today.
I can say with some experience that the only reason these products can be handled on such low margins is the terrific turnover. The suggestion has been made from time to time in the house that articles bearing taxes should show those taxes in their prices. I believe the suggestion was first advanced by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and I am sure no hon. member on this side of the house has any quarrel with it. We know that on one package of cigarettes the government receives today almost 25 cents. That does, of course, leave a margin of 10 cents to the manufacturer. I am not prepared to say whether or not that margin is too great, because I have never manufactured cigarettes.
Manufacturers in Canada follow a policy that is different from that followed in the production of tobacco products in the United

States. In that country a large manufacturer will concentrate on the production of one line, whereas in Canada the largest manufacturer has perhaps dozens of lines, although there may be very little change in the quality or the type of the product.
It is not for me to say however that we might have a cheaper product if Canadian manufacturers were to follow the policy accepted in the United States, where cigarettes are sold in such great volume. I can never get away from the thought that where one must manufacture twenty-five products instead of only one the cost is bound to go up on each individual product.
Tobacco taxation is seriously affecting our tobacco growers. The consumption of tobacco from Canadian production will be down. It has taken years to develop an export market for our tobaccos, and that market has become essential to our economy. We have had it for some time, and the market has been well developed. I am inclined to think however that those who have grown tobacco this year will find that they will receive less for what they have to sell. I know their product is just as good as it ever was, but they may be inclined to cut down on production next season. Not only will the Canadian market be affected, but it will affect our export sales.
When I think of these excise taxes on tobacco products, I am wondering if, when the Liberal leader was down in Simcoe, Norfolk, Kent, Elgin and Essex, he told the people down there that he supported an increase in the excise tax on cigarettes. I wonder, too, if when he was in Brantford, where 500 people working in refrigerator plants have been thrown out of work, he told the people in that city that he favoured the imposition of the 15 per cent excise tax on refrigerators, electric stoves and washing machines. Did he tell the people in those places that he supported this government's policy of taxing these household necessities?
We hear a good deal of talk in the house about the cost of living, and extravagance in government spending; we hear talk about economies and inflation. The Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) said at one time, quite vociferously: if he wanted to get away with it, who was going to stop him? Well, I have a return here dated January 26, 1948-and I believe my reason for making reference to it will be obvious in a moment. In the return I asked this question:
1. What amount, if any, was paid by the government to W. C. Thomson, barrister, Toronto, for legal work in the year ending March 31, 1947?
This was in connection with the Veterans Land Act. The return states that as of December 20, 1947, Mr. Thomson received

$142,768. In the next three months he received $65,251, and there was payable to him $17,697, making a total for fifteen months of $225,716.
A return tabled on June 14, 1951, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), states that Mr. Thomson received a small sum since that time. The total sum received by him up to June 14, 1951, was $232,135.
The only comment I would make on those returns is that he did receive $6,419 in about two years after the first return was made. It seems clear that even a backbencher in the Liberal party is able to get a quarter of a million dollars in fifteen months. No wonder he can go down to the dairy country in Oxford and tell the farmers that he, too, is a grand farmer. Who in the world in this country could not be a grand farmer if he could get from this or any other government a quarter of a million dollars in fifteen months?


Mr. Gibson:: What election are we fighting at the present time?


Joseph Warner Murphy: I hear the hon. member for
Comox-Alberni.


John Lambert Gibson: I will stick my nose in, too.


Joseph Warner Murphy: All right, and I will tell
you what you can do: run up next door to my office and take the sign off the door which says "W. C. Thomson". As long as that sign stands on that door I will comment in the house. It is about time the people of this country realized that this government cannot get away with everything. We have come to a fine state of affairs when the federal government at Ottawa, this Liberal government, will subsidize a provincial leader by providing him with office space in the House of Commons when, God only knows, lots of us would like to get better accommodation. Not only that, but he gets secretarial service, and a typewriter pounds in my ear from next door, night and day. He is doing a grand job in that office, at the taxpayers' expense.
What does this government care about money? I wonder if he went down to Windsor. If he did so, did he tell the unemployed numbering over several thousand that they were out of work because of this government's policy and that he had supported the government in its respective policies? Did he tell them that? The Minister of Defence Production went down to Windsor and he told these unemployed people that all they had to do was to go one hundred miles and they would get work. I live in the Sarnia district, which is not one hundred miles from Windsor, and we do not want that many
The Address-Mr. Murphy additional unemployed because there are five or six hundred out of work already from the Holmes foundry and about the same number from the Auto-Lite plant. If it were not for the huge industrial development down there there would be far more unemployed in Sarnia.
Perhaps when Mr. Jolliffe went to Windsor he did not read Mr. Green's speech which he used when he spoke at the Toronto fair. I think this is important in view of the unemployment that they have there, and perhaps I should place Mr. Green's remarks on the record. Then he will probably use it. We are the people who are supposed to believe in free enterprise, and then for some reason or other the C.C.F. do not accept it. It is not often that I quote the Toronto Star, but they were kind to me during the last election. I must thank them for getting me elected. I shall give them another opportunity as soon as possible, and I think the result will be the same. I quote from the Toronto Star of September 4, 1951, which reports a speech by Mr. Green who, as we all know, or as anyone who belongs to a union knows, is the president of one of the greatest unions on this continent. The report reads:
"Organized labour stands for the free enterprise system," he said. "But where would it be without the support of 8 million men in organized labour in the U.S.? America is the last home of free enterprise."
The article is quite long, but the closing words are as follows:
Mr. Green got applause from his audience when he shouted, "There will never be a totalitarian government in America so long as the American Federation of Labor lives and functions."
"Let us sink our tiny differences and stand together for the free enterprise system, which means freedom for labour to organize and for the rights of employers. Let us dwell on the bonds that hold us together rather than the barriers which divide us," he said.
Maybe Mr. Jolliffe could use that in Hamilton and Toronto.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fight your own election.


Joseph Warner Murphy: You do not fight your own elections, you bring in the premier from Saskatchewan. At least I am from Ontario.


Mr. Martin:: Which Mr. Green are you referring to? Are you referring to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra or the member for New York?


Joseph Warner Murphy: I think it will be quite obvious from the record which one I am referring to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the debate on the speech from the throne.


Joseph Warner Murphy: That is right.
PROVINCE .... VICTORIA, B. a

The Address-Mr. Murphy


An hon. Member:: Tell us more about Thomson.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It is not going to do you fellows any good because we can see your ranks being cut down every day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is in his room now?


Joseph Warner Murphy: You ought to go up there and see how it is staffed with males and females. I do not know how many there are. By accident I went in there one day, not because I could not read the sign but because I wanted to go in the door. This is the man who is supposed to have left here as a member of the House of Commons.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Where is he now?


Joseph Warner Murphy: I did not hear the hon. member. With reference to the horn, member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), I say what I said when I first came in to the house, that I have heard more intelligent sounds coming from a cradle, and they were not cries for a bottle either. We have this champion of Liberal rights going up and down the province of Ontario. I wonder if he is telling the Canadian Legion and the Daughters of the Empire that he would like to have the word "royal" struck out of Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force? I wonder if he goes to the elementary and high schools and the universities and tells them that he voted against federal aid for education? I do not suppose he has mentioned the subsidies which he voted against.
I suppose we shall have another opportunity to deal with the cost of living. Before I close I want to say that I listened with interest to the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), who spoke in the debate a few days ago and who seemed greatly concerned about the situation in Windsor. I think the hon. member had the sympathy of every other hon. member because he found himself in the most unfortunate position of having to say that the government had a responsibility there and were not facing up to it.
It seems a shame that we have to listen to ministers of the crown telling the people in Windsor to go across the river, to get out of this country if they want to get work. That is nothing but a rotten shame because it is government policy that put those people out of work. I think the government is responsible to the people of Windsor. That city has got only a trickle of defence orders and not many years ago it was the arsenal of Canada. I think those men are entitled to more consideration than they are getting from this government. They should not be left in such


a hopeless situation. For a government or any member of the government to tell unemployed people to go one hundred miles away to get jobs, or to go across the river, is just about the last word in party politics.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: 
"The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things." For a few moments I should like to deal with the reserve army. I believe it is generally recognized that we have a considerable wastage in our reserve army. Under a democratic government, and without compulsion, that wastage is difficult to prevent. But when we are spending the taxpayers' money in the training of a reserve army it should be our duty, as representatives of the taxpayers, to see to it that we prevent as much of that wastage as is humanly possible. At this time, sir, I do not wish to bring in provincial personalities and compare them with other extremely fine soldiers in the Dominion of Canada. I should like to cite just one or two instances that will bear out what I am about to say.
During the last war two outstanding officers of the Canadian expeditionary force were Major General Hoffmeister and Brigadier Sherwood Lett. I could name others, but those two gallant soldiers bear out the truthfulness of what I am about to say. I believe, and I strongly recommend to the government, that we should do something to prevent this continual wastage in our reserve forces. I do not say that this is a complete answer, but I maintain that it would be most helpful. We have today a gap between the age at which men are taken into the reserve army and that at which boys graduate from the cadet force. During that period in which they are neither cadets nor members of the reserve forces we have a terrific wastage of the money that has been expended in the training of the personnel of our cadet force. I suggest that the government give serious consideration to closing that gap.
That can be done in either of two ways. It can be done by taking younger men or by lowering the age at which personnel go into the reserve army, or it can be done by increasing the age at which our young boys graduate from their cadet training. If we can synchronize the end of cadet training with the commencement of reserve training, it is my considered opinion that we shall have accomplished a great deal not only with regard to the continuing discipline and training of these young men but also with regard to the prevention of waste caused by the time lapse that now exists, during which the cadet loses contact and possibly does not go into the reserve. I respectfully suggest that that gap be closed, and that either of the two alternatives that I have already mentioned be utilized so as to prevent that wastage in the future.
During the time that I have been interested in public affairs, it seems to me that we have had in the armies of Canada one of two conditions. Our army has either been riding

high with an abundance of money or has not had any. They have been living in an era of feast or famine. It would seem logical that those two extremes be compromised. I believe that it would be wise if our authorities in Canada who have to deal with our defence forces would give that matter some consideration.
It is not enough, Mr. Speaker, that certain men in any of the services say that we must have such and such, regardless of the cost. I say that because, in my riding-and I presume that it is similar to all other ridings in Canada, in many aspects-the people are not so greatly concerned about the amount of money that we are spending on defence as they are about whether that money is being properly and economically spent. I think we all will agree with that statement. That condition that we have gone through in my lifetime-certainly in the part of my lifetime from the time when I was engaged in fighting in the first world war up to the present-has been, as I have said, one of two extremes. The various branches of our defence services have been living in a period of either feast or famine. Again I say that I think we should give some consideration to dovetailing those two extremes into a more factual average with respect to the amount of service that we are securing from the expenditure of the taxpayers' money. That is not going to be an easy thing because you have the question of what might be termed, in the vernacular of the street, the opinion of the brass. But we must recognize the fact that that condition exists; and if anything can be done to ameliorate it, then by all means let us do it. Before I leave the question of defence, I wish to congratulate the minister and the government on the integration of the services. It has been a terrific job. Regardless of what may be said about spending too much money, in that one instance alone I think we had done something that will stand to the everlasting credit of the administration and of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton).
Now I want to deal shortly and briefly with one aspect of finance. I see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is in his seat and that he perks up his ears.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is all ears.


John Lorne MacDougall: I am not going to be too critical of the minister, but in one of the papers the other day I noticed something that struck me rather forcibly, namely, the definition of a bargain sale. It was defined as a place where a woman goes to save more money than her husband can afford. I think all members of the House of Commons received last week a copy of the Vancouver 94699-45
The Address-Mr. MacDougall Daily Province depicting my good friend the Minister of Finance and a group of parliamentarians; it did not say to which side they belonged; it described them just as parliamentarians, and we will let it go at that. Up above was shown a horn of plenty and pouring from that horn of plenty was the $500 million surplus. I am quite in favour of a surplus. If we did not have a surplus but had a deficit, I can imagine the wails I would hear go up from the various parts of the house. I am all for the surplus. Make no mistake about that. But coupled with that was an advertisement, which must have cost a great deal of money, by the motor dealers of British Columbia; the fact remains that it was there. I did not need to see that advertisement in order to recognize the fact that a great number of small people feel the pinch with respect to credit restrictions in that regard. I am all for credit restrictions. Make no mistake about that. I think our Minister of Finance has done a magnificent job in doing what he has done indirectly to prevent the continuing rise of the high cost of living, But I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the house, that there are a great number of small people in Canada who need transportation to and from work. They cannot get it by means of bus or electric railway in many cases. In all fairness to our good friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), I suggest that he give consideration to bringing our restrictions more in line with the United States system, particularly as it affects the cities and towns in the southern portion of Canada that have constant communication back and forth with that great country. The basis upon which they buy motorcars is one-third down and a year and a half to pay the remainder.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And the price is one-third less.


John Lorne MacDougall: As hon. members know, our arrangements are 50 per cent down and twelve months to pay the remainder. I would be remiss in interpreting the thoughts of the people of Burrard if I did not draw that to the attention of the minister, certainly not in any invidious way but in all sincerity. That is why I have quoted what a bargain sale actually is. Some people think that the Minister of Finance is the housewife and he is saving more than the husband can afford.
My time has nearly expired. I do wish to say how pleased I am that legislation is to come down with respect to increases in the basic rates of veterans pensions. I wish to be excluded from this statement because I happen to be one. I am not speaking for myself; I am speaking for the great mass of men and women who, when the great hour

The Address-Mr. MacDougall of national danger was upon our front door step, never hesitated in going forward even at the sacrifice of their lives in order that the freedom, liberty and Christian belief of the Canadian people might be saved from the iron heel of either Mussolini, the Kaiser or Adolf Hitler. The sacrifices of these people have been the bulwark of Canadian national unity. Had it not been for their service we could quite easily today be under the hand or the heel of a dictator from a foreign power. Therefore I congratulate the government upon seeing the vision with respect to the needs of all these men and women across the Dominion of Canada. I hope that at the next session of parliament we shall be able adequately to deal with some other aspects of dependents legislation, which will make it more amenable to the needs and requirements of people who have suffered by virtue of the positive factors of actual warfare in the frontline trenches, regardless of whether they be on the North American continent, Africa, Europe, India or wherever they may be.
In closing I want to say a few brief words on a subject that I have spoken on previously in this house. I understand that we are not to have a baby budget at this present session -I do not think we need it. Consequently I will be precluded from speaking on it unless I deal with it today. I refer to those who are on fixed incomes and those who are in the age category of 45 years and over. Our governments on all levels, municipal, provincial and federal, are not setting too good an example to the general employer of the Dominion of Canada in the way we deal with those 45 years of age and over. I know that there is an actuarial question that arises when one is employed in the civil service or in the government service generally in either a temporary or a permanent position, and it has to do with the question of pensions. Surely that problem is not beyond the brain trusters of the federal government. I think that men and women of 45 are more adequately equipped to do a good job for either the ordinary employer or the government than a person of 20 or 25, because they have the experience to go with their years. Again I impress upon the government the need, the dire need, of doing something with respect to men and women in this particular age group.
Let me say a word about those on fixed incomes. Early in my remarks I stated that there were not many people in the Dominion of Canada who want to revert to the economic conditions that existed in 1935-39, which form the basic years upon which we calculate our cost of living. I do not think many want


to go back to those years. But may I say that I as an individual am not concerned about the tycoon. In my opinion he is able to look after himself, and I am not concerned about him. Mind you, I am not speaking against him, I am all for him; but as members of parliament I do not think we need to worry about his economic need. They can be looked upon as one layer of bread in the sandwich. The bottom layer of that sandwich might be termed the great labour organizations throughout the Dominion of Canada. And God bless them, too. They are a good outfit. But in many instances they have escalator clauses in their contracts, and therefore they are not particularly suffering from the rise in the cost of living. Of course, we would all like to see everybody have more money, and also that everybody should pay less taxes; but we have to deal objectively with the situation as it presents itself. Those two categories that I have mentioned are the toast of the sandwich; but what is in between in the sandwich? What is the meat, if you wish, of the sandwich? I am quite sure you will all agree that the meat of the sandwich is those poor people who are on permanently fixed incomes. They are the ones who are being strangled because of this high cost of living and high taxes.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would put in a plea for the alleviation of the difficulties of that particular group of people. I do not know how many are in the Dominion of Canada. We have so many records in Canada with respect to all age groups and all incomes that I am sure it would not be too difficult to find out the number of these people. I say in all seriousness and sincerity that if we can find-as we have found and as we shall likely continue to find-additional bonuses for civil servants, for instance, then surely we should be able to do something to relieve the suffering of the small man and the small woman on fixed income. There is not a single thing they can do, either as individuals or as a group, to rectify this mistake-if we may call it that-that is now foisted upon them.
So I beseech the government to give this matter earnest consideration. I believe that no more humanitarian legislation could be brought down by this or any other parliament than a type which would give people of low fixed incomes a greater income than they now have, and with which they must now face the world and eke out a living.
It makes no difference whence that income is derived-whether it be disability pension, commercial pension, old age pension or what have you-when one is on a fixed

small income of perhaps $400 or $500 a year and endeavours to keep body and soul together on that amount, it is high time for us to do something about it.


Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to take advantage of this opportunity to speak in this debate on the address in reply so that I may discuss some of the problems my constituents have to face, and also to analyse a little more closely the subamendment of the C.C.F. now before the house.
(Translation):
May I first be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate my friend, the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Cauchon), on his magnificent speech as mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. His great oratorical delivery evoked in my memory my first sessions in the house, when Ernest Lapointe and P. J. A. Cardin were among the prominent speakers of the day. Needless to say, I listened carefully to his speech, which gave me great pleasure. I wish to congratulate him.
(Text):
I wish also to congratulate the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons). Nothing could have been more fitting than for him to open the door to the great north, to take us into his confidence, and to take this opportunity to extol the great advantages of the north as well as to explore its possibilities. I am sure the constituents of Yukon-Mackenzie River must have been pleased with the presentation he made in the house and, for one, I am most grateful to him for his informative address.
I should like now to turn briefly to some of the more immediate problems facing my constituents in Provencher. I make no apologies for referring to those problems even at this late stage in the debate, because they are of a general character and can be found in most parts of western Canada.
As all hon. members are aware, we experienced this fall very bad weather and difficult conditions. My personal experience has been that the last two fall seasons have been the worst I have known. Bad weather conditions, and everything flowing therefrom, created a period of great concern and anxiety in the early fall among all the farming population of western Canada. This would apply with equal force to the businessmen and all others connected with the activities in that part of Canada.
One must bear in mind that, particularly in my district, we experienced a disastrous flood two years ago, with the result that very little crop was sown last year, and the revenue
The Address-Mr. Jutras was limited. In addition to this, harvesting operations were very expensive, and the farmers found that it required the expenditure of a lot of money to reap the crop in the fields. The result was that, even in those areas that were not flooded, the revenue was limited, owing to bad weather conditions.
Again this year, with the heavy expenditures for harvesting coupled with the slow movement of grain brought about by the shortage of box cars-and this, in turn, is due to the weather-the people have gone through a period of great concern. In most places they have been short of ready cash, and this was true particularly in the early part of the season.
When one considers that up until the time this session opened no grain had been sold to the elevators that was not at least tough, and that a great deal of it was damp, and when he considers further that out in Manitoba the price received by the farmer for tough wheat is $1.18, and that he is restricted to a quota of nine bushels to the acre-or was in the early part of the season- a simple arithmetical calculation discloses that the ready cash position was not very good. And all this must be coupled with the high expense of reaping the crop.
On this score, through the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) I would make a suggestion to the Canadian wheat board. My suggestion would be that the announcement of the annual price to the farmer should be speeded up, if at all possible. I realize that the wheat board has difficulties and that, to a certain extent, it must wait until it has a general picture as to what the various grades will be before it can establish the prices. On the other hand I must point out that this makes the situation more difficult for those of us in Manitoba than for people in other provinces. We are always the first in western Canada to harvest our grain, usually beginning harvesting operations some two or three weeks in advance of Saskatchewan. So that quite often by the time the crops in Saskatchewan are being harvested, we have been harvesting for over a month. This year our farmers had been harvesting for more than a month before a price was announced by the wheat board. During all that time those farmers were anxious and concerned, not knowing what they would get.
I realize that there are difficulties in connection with early price announcements. I suggest that the Canadian wheat board issue a bulletin every week or every other week when harvesting is under way in Manitoba in order to keep the farmers informed of what goes on and as to when they can expect a price. There are many things done by the

The Address-Mr. Jutras wheat board of which the farmers are not generally aware and I think that it would be of advantage to all concerned if more publicity was given to these things.
I know, for instance, that before the price was announced this fall there were hundreds of farmers in my constituency who did not have the slightest idea of what they would get for their wheat. I was even surprised to find one bank manager in a wheat growing district who told me that he had no idea what the farmers would get. Of course he should have known that No. 1 northern would bring $1.40 Fort William.
If a farmer wanted to get a loan from that bank to carry him through he would not be in position to make any loan because he did not have any idea of what would be obtained for the wheat. If these farmers were told that a price would be announced in a week or so, if attention was drawn to the difficulties that were being encountered, I am sure that the farmer would be relieved of a great deal of anxiety and it would make for better understanding among all concerned. I suggest again that the wheat board announce its price for the various grains at as early a date as possible.
There is another thing the board did about which the farmers knew nothing. As I said, some of the farmers in my constituency had harvested for over a month and had their grain at the elevator. They were worried that they would have to pay storage because they could not sell until the price was announced. Those farmers who had obtained advances from the grain companies were worried that they would have to pay interest. We know that the Canadian wheat board has an arrangement with all the grain companies that no interest would be charged, that these interest charges would be paid by the board. I have not run across one farmer who knew about this arrangement and many of them were worried.
I give these two illustrations to point out the merits of the Canadian wheat board issuing bulletins from time to time at the beginning of the fall in order to keep the farmers posted as to what is going on and preventing unnecessary anxiety on their part.
The difficulty of moving grain has again brought up the demand for farm storage payments and advances. This matter has been brought up in the house mostly by opposition members. It was brought up outside the house in a most dramatic fashion by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I am sorry he is not in his seat today because I would have liked to refer to the manner in which this was announced.
Since the matter has been brought up, I should like to deal briefly with this problem. The problem must be analysed from all sides. I was surprised at hearing the members of the opposition merely make the demand without attempting to analyse the problem at all. I understand from those who have made a study of it that it is not a simple problem. First of all, provision to pay storage for grain held on the farm is already contained in the Canadian Wheat Board Act so there would be no need to change the act.
The first question that arises is the rate of payment. Presumably it would be the same rate that is paid to the elevator, that is one cent for thirty days after fifteen days. The next point that comes up is who would pay the storage. It has been suggested that the wheat board pay the storage. I think it is most important to make it quite clear to all members of this house, particularly those who are not from the west, that it is the wheat board and not the government that is being asked to pay the charges on wheat stored on the farm. There is all the difference in the world. No public money is involved in this. It merely means that an advance payment is being made to the farmer for wheat stored on the farm. In the final analysis it will be the producers themselves who will be paying with their own money, but in advance instead of having to wait until the end of the year.
Over the years Manitoba, the province from which I come, has been the first province to sell. That is logical since we are the first province to harvest. Our harvesting conditions are better at the start than those prevailing in the other two provinces. Generally speaking, the heavy movement in Manitoba is in the early part of the year, and I think statistics will show that the heavy movement in the other provinces is much later in the year and in the early spring. There is some movement in the early and late fall, there is little marketing during the winter, and then you have another heavy surge of marketing in the early spring. Taking a selfish point of view, I do not see how Manitoba would really benefit from any scheme of that nature.
There is another important consideration. The elevator companies have a specific understanding with the wheat board that they must deliver their grain when requested by the board. This would create a problem in connection with wheat stored on the farm because it might be hard to have immediate delivery made of that grain. However, possibly some system could be worked out to make this possible.

In my humble opinion the payment of farm storage would be a plum to the larger operator. The large operator is usually able to hold off his marketing until later. He can sit back and wait until the spring, or even for a year or two. But the smaller farmer cannot wait that long because he has financial obligations to meet.
The board must have wheat on hand because there are definite commitments which must be met at this time of the year. Milling wheat is at a premium and the board has to make special efforts to get that grade across before the close of season. Even if it attempted to pay storage on the farm an exception would have to be made in the case of milling wheat. There is another problem. At the present time, as I said, most of the grain is tough. That is not grain that will keep on the farms. It has to be moved to a drier before it can be stored. One of the arguments in favour of this proposal is that the farmers would get the storage that the companies are getting at the present time. Even that has to be looked into a little more closely, because the question there is: how much of that storage would the farmers get? As I said, the bulk of the crop must move at the present time because it is already sold and committed. The wheat board has to get it out. Therefore it could not remain on the farms very long.
Furthermore, I imagine that the wheat board should have a stock of grain on hand at all times to meet demands when they arise; because I am sure that one of the things we do not want to do in this country is to start piling up surpluses of grain anywhere. I am sure we are anxious to sell as much as we can, as fast as we can. Therefore it would appear that the only wheat involved, as to which payments might be made to the primary producers for storage, would be surplus wheat. Lately at any rate surplus wheat has not been very substantial. Therefore it all depends on how much would really go back to the producer that would otherwise go to the companies.
When I look at the matter from Manitoba's point of view, I cannot help but think that it certainly sounds like a P.F.A.A. proposition, where you put $3 in and get $1 of your own money back. Frankly I cannot have much enthusiasm for this suggestion. However, it is a broad suggestion and I believe it should be examined very closely to see if it can be of real benefit to agriculture.
It would appear that the solution is more storage space at the country elevator points. In my humble opinion the most important factor of all is that we are dealing with the farmers' money, not public money. Surely
The Address-Mr. Jutras therefore the farmer should be heard and given a chance to analyse the scheme before it is introduced by the government. This is not a matter for political parties or even for politicians individually to demand that it be put into operation immediately. It is certainly a problem, and since it concerns the farmers' money they should at least be given a chance to be heard and to analyse the scheme before the government implements the measure.
The counterpart of storage on farms is the proposition that advance payment be made for wheat thus stored. I have a great deal of sympathy with that proposition, not so much from the immediate point of view but as a long-range measure. I think it should be studied closely. Here again the main question that arises is who will advance the money. It has been suggested in many quarters that the Canadian wheat board should advance the money for wheat stored on farms. I should like to suggest that possibly this is the wrong place to fix the responsibility for making advances on wheat. I would much prefer that some effort be made to try to get our lending institutions to perform that task in the various communities. If the matter is studied closely, I am sure there is no reason in the world why our lending institutions could not make advances on properly stored and, if we wish, graded grain held on the farms. The local manager knows the people of his community; he lives with them and knows the conditions, and it would be much simpler than to ask the Canadian wheat board, which is located in Winnipeg, to operate such a scheme.
Under the wheat board you would have to have certificates as to the grade before it could be done. Even the granaries would have'to pass inspection. They would have to be weather and rodent proof. In other words they would have to measure up to all the various specifications in order to make sure the money would be lent by the board on say No. 1 wheat that would still be No. 1 wheat later on in the year. If we embark upon such a course then we will need an army of inspectors to go around checking in order to make sure that the wheat is still there next month or three, four or five months later, and to check that the condition of the grain is being maintained. Therefore I should very much like to see our lending institutions look into this problem. It seems to me it is one of the services they could render to the rural communities of the west, and as a matter of fact it might also prove most profitable to them.
If I may go back to what I said at the beginning, these demands all boil down to the lack of ready cash at the moment, and I

The Address-Mr. Jutras should like to make two specific recommendations to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I can assure him that I have given this matter a great deal of consideration before deciding to make these suggestions. In order to alleviate the present conditions, and as a long-range plan, first of all I would respectfully submit that a date be set for the commencement of the payment of participation certificates on the various grades. This year the Canadian wheat board, as we know, started issuing the first cheques in the middle of October, and this was an abnormal year. They had their difficulties the same as the farmers. These difficulties affected them and made their task that much harder. I would suggest that October 1 be set as a tentative date for the issuance of the first cheques. There are many reasons for that. First of all the farmer would be in a better position to know where he stands. I find, for instance, that in a year like the present one he knows what the initial payment will be on his grain. If he could receive his cheque on the participation certificate of the year before at about the same time as he receives his initial payment he would in effect, from a practical point of view, draw as much money as if he were receiving full market value at that time. Therefore it would mean being behind only one year. After that, participation would make up the difference each year, and he would be in a much better position.
However, even if the date is not fixed exactly as the first of October, it would make a big difference if he knew when payment would be made, because I find that a great many have to go to the bank to borrow money to finish harvesting and meet certain obligations. As it is, not knowing when the cheques will be issued, the farmers are left in a very uncertain position. They go to the bank manager to ask for a loan, and they do not know whether they should ask for it for a period of one, two or three months. It makes all the difference in the world to the bank manager whether he has to make a loan for two months or six months. After all, we have a set date for the close of the crop year. It closes on July 31. If we allow one month for the various grain companies to turn in their reports to the board, then it would give the board another month to issue the cheques.


Percy Ellis Wright: Would the hon. member permit a question?


René Jutras: Yes.


Percy Ellis Wright: Does the hon. member realize that is the amendment we suggested last year when these amendments to the wheat
	.

board act were before the house, that payments be made one month after the end of the official crop year, or on October 1?


René Jutras: I am not saying it should be a month. I am saying the Canadian wheat board, because I know all the men on the board and I know they are doing the best they can under the circumstances, should determine the time. If they can do it in a month, so much the better. If they cannot do it in a month let us give them six weeks or two months, but at least there should be a definite date. It would make it much easier then for the farmers to plan their operations.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is what we suggested last year when the amendments were before the house, but it was turned down.


René Jutras: As I said, what length of time should be allowed after the close of the year I do not know, and I am not in a position to determine. I do not think the hon. member is in any better position to determine it. The Canadian wheat board should do it. All I want to say is that I think it would be a great help if a date were set.
Last year the wheat board made an advance payment of 20 cents. I know I am speaking for my constituents when I say that, in view of the difficult conditions of last year caused by the flood, and in view of the expensive harvest of this year with a large percentage of the crop not being harvested, the Canadian wheat board should be urged to consider making another advance payment this year of any reasonable amount they may see fit. I would hope that it would be the same as last year, 20 cents per bushel. All indications point to the fact that the crop is selling well on the markets of the world at relatively the same price as last year. I would think, therefore, the board would be in a position to make an advance payment of 20 cents per bushel on this year's crop. I am sure this would be of great help, particularly to those who have only sold part of their crop this year. I urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce to impress	upon the
wheat board the necessity of trying to make another supplementary payment on this year's crop as soon as possible.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with the C.C.F. amendment. I shall read it, because it is rather important:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the words "high cost of living," the following words:
such as the making of provisions for price controls and the payment of subsidies, where necessary, so as to equalize the sacrifices our people are called upon to make at this time.
I should like to draw your attention particularly, Mr. Speaker, to these carefully

selected words. I cannot help but feel that it is just a front to hoodwink the farmers again while favouring one class of society. What does that amendment actually mean? It can only mean one thing, particularly when we review the speech made by the leader of the C.C.F., the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and the speeches of his stalwarts. They have deplored the low salaries in the country, and certainly I can agree that some of the salaries are not what they should be. Then they deplored the fact that the farmers of this country were underpaid. Again I would agree with that. But what is their solution? They say we should raise wages and pay subsidies to the farmers.
It is quite obvious that this amendment caters to one class of society. I recall the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I regret that a party, the representatives of which come mostly from Saskatchewan, should be the one to introduce such an amendment. Unfortunately these sentiments are echoed by others who are not far from that party in the house, with the result that the other day we heard the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) ask for an embargo on the export of beef cattle from this country. I do not know whether it is unparliamentary to use the word "nonsense" but that kind of nonsense will get them nowhere. It is unfortunate that there are always some people who pick on the farmers in an attempt to bring down the cost of living. It is an attitude that is most humiliating to the farmers, and seems to indicate that farmers are not entitled to a fair value for their products.
All this flows from pre-war conditions when the farmers sold at below the cost of production. During the war they continued to produce at below cost, but the subsidies made up the difference. Now our C.C.F. friends would like people to believe that all would be well if the farmers were singled out to receive subsidies, while others received full value for their products. This amendment can mean nothing else, because it refers to "subsidies where necessary." From the bureau of statistics I obtained a bulletin setting forth the elements which go to make up the cost of living index. It is most interesting. As most members know, it is made up of various items, the largest of which is food which represents 31-3 per cent of the whole cost of living. The second one in importance is the miscellaneous item, which represents 22-6 per cent. This item takes in health, which includes drugs, doctors, dentists, and so on. I am sure there would be little room for subsidies in that item. Then there
The Address-Mr. Jutras is a personal item for things like tooth powder, razor blades and so on. I do not suppose our C.C.F. friends would subsidize any of them. Then comes transportation, which includes streetcars, automobiles, and so on. Again there is little room for subsidies. The next item is recreation, including the theatre, hockey and all the other amusements. I suppose it takes in bingo. I do not suppose anyone would subsidize bingo. Then there is life insurance, and it is hard to conceive that anyone would subsidize that. The other item which makes up 100 per cent of the cost of living is shelter, which represents 19 per cent. To a certain extent we have subsidized housing now. Then there is fuel, light and clothing in which labour is the predominant factor. There are home furnishings and services, telephone and electrical appliances. It is hard to conceive how you could apply a subsidy there. When they say that subsidies will be applied where necessary, they can only mean that subsidies would be paid to primary producers of food.
The primary producers of this country believe they should receive fair value for their products. If subsidies are to be paid to some people, let everyone receive them. Let us not single out one class for subsidies and keep it below par. At the present time we are living under an extremely high cost of living indeed; but we are also living under an extremely high standard of living. As a matter of fact the food index has been going down for two months, but everything else, aside from food, has been going up during that same period.
This is something that has been pointed out before, but I wish to refer briefly to a table that was published in the Ottawa Farm Journal. It was compiled by Gilbert McMillan and gives the cost and the amount of work required for milk and butter. The Canadian average retail price for a quart of milk in 1939 was 11-1 cents; in June, 1951, it was 19-5 cents, with the result that the number of quarts of milk per hourly earning in 1939 was 3 -85 and in June, 1951, it was 5 -94. The working time required to buy a quart of milk in June, 1939, was 15-6 minutes and the working time required in June, 1951, was 10-1 minutes. The same thing applies to creamery butter. The working time required to buy one pound of butter in 1939 was 41-2 minutes and in June, 1951, it was 35-2 minutes- Hence, in working time, ithe cost of food at the present time is not high as compared with 1939 or any other previous period.
While I am on the subject of the dairy industry I should like to say a word about

The Address-Mr. Jutras its plight in this country at the present time. I have a great deal of sympathy with that industry in Canada. I remember quite well the great service it rendered to agriculture particularly during the depression. I know that in our section of the country it was the dairy industry that kept us through the depression and prevented us from going bankrupt when the prices of other agricultural commodities were so low. I am quite sure it is no exaggeration to say that the dairy industry kept the farmers from general bankruptcy throughout the west and throughout Canada during those bad years we have known in our history. This industry therefore should receive special attention at this time. There is no question about the fact that at the moment it is going through a difficult period. Exactly what the answer is I am sorry to say I do not know. But I should like someone in authority to make a study of this problem, because it needs to be looked into without too much delay.
In passing, I should like to make one little suggestion based on experience in my own constituency. There we have one of the most modern cheese factories in the country, situated at Grunthal. It is the only cheese factory west of Ontario, I believe, which is equipped with a pasteurizer. They tell me they have quite a large demand for new cheese; that is, for cheese that has not been aged. The law does not allow them to sell their cheese until a certain time. Experts on cheese may argue that cheese that is not aged is not good cheese, but that does not alter the fact that they tell me their clients, the people who buy cheese, want cheese right out of the vat. If that is the way they want it, and if they are not going to buy it any other way, and if they will not buy cheese unless they can get that cheese, it would increase the consumption of cheese if we allowed them to sell it right out of the vat. The argument was made that it was not safe for health. This restriction was imposed by the Department of National Health and Welfare. As I say, now that they have a pasteurizer and the milk is pasteurized before it goes into cheese, I cannot see that the argument still holds good. After all, the other types of spread cheese are allowed to be sold without being aged at all. I should therefore think it would be possible to allow that cheese to get on the market. I am told that consumption would go up in certain parts of the country, particularly in western Canada, if they were allowed to get that cheese on the table before it is aged. I am just passing that thought along as one suggestion. There are many others that could be made, such as with regard to packaging and so on, that would no doubt help the

situation in the dairy industry. This matter should be looked into without delay by someone in authority in order to try to find a solution to this problem.
In conclusion I just want to say that instead of always looking to food and the farmer in order to try to bring down the cost of living, one should look elsewhere. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the place to look at the present time, because the price of food is not high in relation to the price of other things. If you want to bring down the cost of living, the place to look is niot in the food category, because production is down and the trend is down, not only in Canada but in the United States. If production keeps going down, the price will be much higher in the years to come. The solution of this problem of inflation is not to be found in food but in other commodities generally whose prices go up. The farmer has set an example. No other class of people in this country have given such a lead and have made such tremendous efforts to stabilize prices in this country. That has been their policy. They have made sacrifices to achieve this stabilization. If all the other industries would follow the same lead, we would soon cure the problem of inflation.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment to the amendment, dealing as it does with an extremely critical and urgent national problem. To my mind this amendment offers the only concrete and logical way of dealing with this emergency of the high cost of living. Other hon. members in this group have already placed on the record sound arguments why the suggested control of prices would bring about immediate relief. I believe it is the only way by which inflation can be effectively stopped, in spite of the statement by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall), quoting from the thirty-eighth editorial that appeared in the Financial Times this week. I too read those editorials. I too felt that they presented the situation quite logically from their point of view, but their point of view is not the point of view of the people of Canada. There were thirty-eight chosen, picked, editorials all along one line. But we must remember that thirty-eight editorials, however they are picked, are still less than half of one per cent of all the editorials that appear in the weekly and daily papers in Canada. Hence, if you were to peruse the other 99J per cent of Canadian papers and read their editorials, I am satisfied that you would get far more editorials requesting price controls than were produced against them in the Financial Times this week. I believe, as I have said, that we have no evidence that the cost of living has
(Mr. Jutras.]

stopped rising. Both by mail and, during my recent stay at home, by personal contact I obtained impressions from the people of my riding, and they are given to me in no uncertain terms. In every case they demanded price controls. I have not had a single letter objecting to price control, but I have had several hundred cards as well as letters and personal contacts demanding it. That feeling is general across this dominion. In spite of this editorial, to my mind the overwhelming majority of Canadian people desire controls immediately. The C.C.F. amendment expresses the wish of that majority. If the government are timorous about accepting our amendment and putting it into practice, the only proper thing to do would be to hold a plebiscite and let every person, every housekeeper, every farmer, every merchant in Canada say whether or not they approved of price control. I believe we would receive an overwhelming answer that they would prefer it to the present mess we are in. I believe the opinion of the vast number of Canadians expressed by plebiscite would be a sounder basis for the government to work on than the opinion of those who advise against price control at the present time.
I come from a tree fruit area that has been particularly hard hit by the high cost of living. They have been particularly hard hit because a few years ago they suffered loss through frost, and last year the price for apples was actually less than during 1939, which is used as the basis for computing the cost of living. It was a pathetic sight to have one group of farmers actually receiving less per box for their apples last year than during the basic period. So far as I am aware they are the only group of farmers that have not benefited by the rise in prices. At the same time everything they buy is up at least 100 per cent. It is true that when they were in distress the government came to their assistance, and for that I am grateful. I think I speak for every fruit grower in the valley when I say I am particularly grateful for the help given. But that does not solve their problem. On their behalf I appeal to the government to reconsider their decision not to impose price control at the present time.
I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They did an excellent job. I would like to refer particularly to the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River. He spoke of the vast potential in his riding. With that I agree a hundred per cent, hut what worries me is not the potential production of the riding, or any other riding, but what is to happen to the goods produced. It is true 94699-46
The Address-Mr. Jones that we can produce abundantly in Canada; there is no question about that. But instead of prosperity there is a chance of such production bringing in its wake unemployment and wasted surpluses.
It has been suggested by the members of the government that we in Canada should produce more, as if that would solve all our ills; but so far no government spokesman has said what to produce. No one has been explicit enough to say: we want more of this, of that or the other, whether garments, clothing, food, furniture or anything in particular; nothing but the general statement: produce more, without saying what we should produce. Producing more on that basis is not the solution to our difficulties. It could be under a planned economy, yes, but not without some such planning. Last year we produced large quantities of potatoes in this country, with the result that the farmers could not get a decent price for them. So this year they produced 25 per cent less and are going to get good markets and a good price. Last year we produced 8 million boxes of apples with the result that we received less than the cost of production. I understand that this year we have a little over 5 million boxes, the price will be higher than last year and the farmers will make a little money. The same applies to plums. This year the price will be greater because we have produced less. The same applies to cattle, hogs, dairy products, wheat, oats, barley. Where there is control you can have a fixed plan in regard to prices, but unless you plan the production in our economy you will have variation in prices.
If you take a look around this country today you will find that our warehouses are bulging with manufactured goods. Retailers are assisting the wholesaler to overstock in their own warehouses in the distributing centres, and they are doing it to help out in an emergency. The other day I asked what is to become of these surpluses, because the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said these goods would leave the shelves at diminishing returns, which is quite true. In other words, the merchant who is taking care of this uncontrolled surplus that we are producing at the request of the government is in a dilemma. As the Prime Minister said, we can get rid of it at diminishing returns, which means virtual bankruptcy for the man who has helped out the government in an emergency. The government should be more explicit and should tell the producers of this country exactly what they want in the way of greater production, and there should be a means to control it.
714	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Jones
We could help out the situation by creating more currency to purchase the goods we produce. We could do that by increasing pensions all across the board, old age pensions, veterans' pensions and family allowances. All these things would help. But on the other hand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) asks us to buy less and consume less, which worsens the situation. I hope the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance will get together some day and make up their minds what they really want, whether the rigid economy of the Minister of Finance or the increased production of the Prime Minister, because both are contradictory and under both suggestions we are going to pile up surpluses that cannot be moved.
The producers and manufacturers are tying up their capital, and in many instances in order to operate they have to borrow. That again places them in a dilemma and adds to the cost of the produced article through interest that is paid to the bank. I do not want the impression to go out that I am opposed to production. I believe that increased production under a planned economy is the solution, along with assistance to move these goods and raise the standard of living of thd people. I am all for increased production if the surplus is to be used for that purpose. The surplus could be used for the pensioners I mentioned, or to feed and clothe the undernourished people of the world whom we have heard a lot about in recent discussions. To increase production just for the fun of it is not my idea of a sound economy.
I should now like to deal shortly with the brief presented to the government this year by the Canadian Legion. I am in complete sympathy with that brief. There is no need to enlarge on the details of it, because I think the case for the veterans was well presented. I further believe that we Canadians who pay these taxes should be quite willing to have an extra tax imposed on us if it is going to help out the veteran with his pension problem, because I feel that for all we have, all we own, the standard of living we retain today, we must give thanks to the efforts of these men. The story would be totally different if there had been a German victory. I feel that our treatment of our veterans, the returned men in general, has not been in line with the benefits we have received from their endeavours during the war. The cost of living has hit pensioners very hard. I do not know of any pensioner today who should not be getting his pension; not one. Close adherence to the rigid standards set up by the Department of Veterans Affairs in connection with the assessment of pensioners' disabilities has been enforced so well by the various boards that


there are no leadswingers, as we used to describe them in the army, among the pensioners today. Holding the view that there are no leadswingers, and that every pension is deserved, I have no hesitation in saying that the demand of the Legion for a 33 per cent increase right across the board should be met, because that is exactly the amount of the increase in the cost of living, from the date of the last increase given to pensioners up to the present time. I have never heard complaints from veterans with respect to overpayment of their claims.
All hon. members have welcomed the announcement made earlier by the minister, and the further announcement today. The only point is that so far we have not been told what the increase will be. I would earnestly ask the minister to consider nothing less than 33 per cent. I would trust that in any case the increase would bear a close relationship to the present high cost of living. As legislation is to be presented at a later time I shall not deal further with the matter now. I would add, however, that the welfare of imperial veterans should also be kept in mind. Owing to the devaluation of the pound, the difficulties involved in securing hospital attention and care and those connected with income tax payments, when they must pay income tax in both countries, and because of several other problems, I do feel we should take a great interest in this matter and pay more attention to the problems of imperial veterans. If a committee is to be set up, I would ask especially that imperial veterans be considered during the deliberations of the committee. This group is now excluded only because of geographical considerations. Their war service aided Canada and the Canadian people just as much as did the service of our own Canadian soldiers. In peacetime some of them have been here for as long as twenty-five or thirty years, and are numbered among our best citizens. They cannot be distinguished from other Canadians.
I should like to refer to one further matter, namely the farmers in the fruit-growing area in which I am interested. I have referred to the severe winter conditions they encountered two years ago, at which time they lost about 600,000 trees. Some of those trees are still dying. Last year's wretched prices did not help, either.	These fruit
growers have also suffered from what in my opinion is unfair competition from subsidized American producers, whose apples are offered at $1.25 per box. In view of all these difficulties many farmers have had to seek loans in order to carry on their work. I have in mind applications for loans which have been directed to the Canadian farm

loan board. In what I shall say I am not blaming the officials of that body, but I do suggest that as it is operated today the farm loan board has become obsolete. It does not fit modern farming conditions. The terms upon which loans are made are obsolete. First of all, they are based upon pre-war values, and especially is this true in those irrigated areas where farm values have gone up and are much higher than is the case on the prairies. Still the act operates much the same, no matter whether it is being applied to prairie land or to the irrigated land of a much higher value. In most instances the land value is at least 100 per cent greater than the assessment allowed by the Canadian farm loan board. Another point is that the homes and buildings alone on some of these farms are worth the $9,000 necessary for a guaranteed maximum loan of $6,000. However the maximum allowed is only $3,600. I know of some homes that cost $15,000 to $18,000, yet the farm loan board has maintained the amount at $3,600. That is why I suggest a change to meet modern building values, which today are double what they were when the act was passed.
I would ask, too, that the board be more generous in its interpretation of values of buildings, equipment, stock and the like. Instead of making loans to assist farmers during this temporary condition, the board has actually stiffened the terms upon which loans can be made. I have here several letters from farmers whose applications for loans have been turned down by the board because these farmers had other liabilities. We realize, of course, that if there were no liabilities the loans would not be required. However that is the excuse given for the refusal, that these farmers have other liabilities; and because they cannot discharge them the loans are not forthcoming.
My interpretation of the act would be that loans should be made on the value of land and buildings, and that from that point on the government would take a mortgage on the property. It is true that the board should have help and should be guided in valuing these assets, and the applicants should explain for what purpose the money is to be used. I do say, however, that an applicant should not be refused a loan simply because he has debts beyond the amount covered by .the required loan. On the contrary he should be helped, because the government is always protected by the mortgage taken on the property. I have before me one example, where the farmer who made application received part of his income through trucking. This man was told to sell his truck and 94699-461
The Address-Mr. Jones turn in the money to reduce the amount of the debt. Had he done so his condition would have been worse than it was before making application for the loan, because his truck was a means he could use to help earn his living. In another instance a farmer was told to sell his cows so he might have the cash and thus reduce the amount of the loan. Again the farmer would have been depriving himself of a source of income, with the result that the loan would not have been of much use.
The strange part of it is that some of these farmers whose applications have been refused by the farm loan board have been able to go to orthodox banking institutions and loan companies and borrow the money on the same assets that were offered as security to the farm loan board. My interpretation of the act has always been that the board was set up to help the farmers, and particularly those who did not have access to orthodox lending channels. My view would be that if the security was good enough for a loan company or a bank, it should be satisfactory for the Canadian farm loan board.
I suggest that farm buildings have value and offer sufficient protection for a loan. The government must always consider the purpose of the loan, and what the money is to do. It is intended to place the farmer on a sound financial footing, by removing the major obligations he has as a chain around his neck. If this sum is exceeded by let us say $100 or $150, it should not be regarded as an amount too great to remain outstanding after the major debts are paid. I believe if the government agency were to issue instructions to its workers in the field to the effect that they must give more careful consideration to loans, and that they should not encourage farmers to dispose of cows, trucks or chickens, as they have done in the past, but rather should encourage those farmers to keep these assets so that their position might be more stable and could be remedied more quickly, they would be rendering a real service to the group of farmers who require help at the present time.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I wish to associate myself with those who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and seconder (Mr. Simmons). I wish also to extend my congratulations to the four new members who have so ably discharged their duties in making their maiden speeches. I do not intend to go into the vast ramifications of the problems facing Canada abroad, but I should like to deal particularly
716	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. H. O. White with many of the problems that affect my constituents and of course all the residents of Canada.
It would seem apparent that a large number of people in the country believe that the government can do what divine Providence in His infinite wisdom has not attempted to do. I make that observation because of the many requests, suggestions and ideas put forth intimating that the government is an eternal spring of wealth. It is not. It cannot spend a dollar that is not taken from you or from me or from someone else.
This session was called primarily to deal with old age pensions. I think that name should be changed to retirement pensions because I suppose many of us here hope to participate in them in the not too distant future. I think this matter has been gone into quite fully by a number of previous speakers, but I do want to touch upon the plight of those who must live on pensions or fixed incomes. In many cases their lot is desperate.
The previous speaker referred to the brief presented by the Legion. It seems to me that brief was just and fair and I can see no valid reason why action on it should be postponed until the next session. I believe every hon. member of the house agrees with the suggestions contained in that brief. It is not enough to say that we cannot pay it when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has been able to gather up some $500 million which might burn a hole in his pocket between now and next session. I know of no better way in which that money could be used than to augment the rather meagre pensions paid to these men who offered their all to protect our freedom. It would appear that the only persons in the community who are being left out are the burnt-out pensioners. Three or four sessions ago I suggested that some formula should be worked out so that all pensions would be hooked up to the cost of living. As prices went up, pensions would go up; if it should happen that prices came down, then pensions would come down. But there would always be a direct relationship to the cost of living. A pension issued twenty or thirty years ago is inadequate to meet today's costs.
That brings up one other matter with which I want to deal, that of inflation. Regardless of what has been said, inflation and the high cost of living apparently go hand in hand. We cannot separate one from the other, no matter how much we might wish so to do. Just a little over a year ago we were called here to bring about the settlement of a railroad strike. The gains made by labour at that time have

been wiped out by the increased cost of living. Civil servants and those on company-employee pension plans find themselves in the position where they have not enough dollars to go around. I repeat that a formula should be worked out so that these pensions would have a continuing relationship to the cost of the things the pensioners must buy.
Returning to veteran pensions for a moment, let us not forget that these pensions should be based on right and not on need. As soon as we introduce the question of need discrimination will creep in regardless of how fair the officials may want to be in administering the pensions. I hope the question of need will be forgotten. Let us give the pension as of right, as it should be.
Let me deal for a moment with national defence. Three years and hundreds of millions of dollars ago the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) mentioned forces in being and the plans for a vastly increased mechanized army, air force and navy. Recently a pamphlet was published by the bureau of statistics under the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). This indicates that the total number of aircraft completed in 1950 in fifteen plants was 85, at a total cost of $2,666,000. When you begin to compare that with the production in the war years of some 4,000 aeroplanes in one year at a cost of $277 million you begin to wonder what is holding up our production. I realize of course that these new aeroplanes are much more difficult and intricate to complete than were the planes of those days, but there is a vast difference between a production of 85 and 4,000 planes.
I should like to draw the attention of the Department of National Defence to a matter that was presented to me last week. A young married man joined the Korean forces, and after being given an I.Q. test he was sent to officers' training school. He completed the course, but he finds that his wife is not eligible for separation allowance because they were married below the age at which an officer is supposed to be married. His people and her people are supporting the wife until such time as the department get around to paying the allowance. This should be looked into because it will have an effect on all those who might be thinking of joining the army in the future. They will say, "If that is the way they treat the wife of a soldier in Korea, I want no part of it." I hope the Department. of National Defence will look into this situation.
While inflation is a big riddle to most of us, nevertheless we all recall that when the Bank of Canada was established it was said

that it was going to do great things for us by way of stabilizing our currency, controlling the fluctuations in dollar value, and so on. Our currency was going to be maintained in such a condition that there would be no more trouble along those lines. I find that in the past few years the amount of money in circulation has gone up four times while the actual production of wealth has only doubled. That, and that alone, indicates why we have to pay more dollars for fewer goods.
Coupled with that is the fact that the government in their defence program-and I have no quarrel with it except to say that it is probably too little and too late-are competing for scarce goods, and the allocation of scarce materials to the needs of the army, navy and air force makes consumer goods scarcer. Therefore with more dollars floating around and fewer goods available we have the very noticeable effect on the high cost of living. Aside from that, a certain amount of labour unrest has been created partly due to the fact that the wages for which labour contracted a year ago are not adequate now, and also because they do not know what is going to happen in the immediate future. Together with labour unrest there are spots of unemployment. With the high cost of living what it is, anyone out of employment for even a short time finds that his credit is not too good and his ability to live properly is curtailed.
The government's attitude toward agriculture has resulted in decreased production in many lines. I want to deal with that more fully, but before doing so there is something else I want to say about inflation. The government like it. It has enabled them to collect a surplus of $500 million. That is one reason they are not facing the problem of inflation and the high cost of living. As costs rise so does the 10 per cent sales tax bring in greater revenue to the coffers of the government. They profess to be unable to stem the tide of inflation; yet at the same time they are the ones who are supposed to have their hands on the Bank of Canada and the control of credit and currency. They profess not to be able to do anything about inflation, when they are the root cause of it.
I should like to turn for a moment or two to the development of our natural resources forecast in the speech from the throne. First and foremost is the seaway project. I believe that Canadians generally approve of the government going ahead, in conjunction with the province of Ontario, with the development of the seaway and power project on the St. Lawrence river. In that connection
The Address-Mr. H. O. White may I point out that we are asked to pour millions into foreign lands to stem the tide of communism while at the same time we have not the money to develop our own resources. Plenty of investment capital is coming from the United States [DOT] to develop our oil, mineral and forest resources. It would seem to me that it is a rather shortsighted policy on our part to be sending money abroad when in some cases it is on a wild goose chase. I say that because we have no guarantee that, after having spent the money in some foreign land, it is not going to turn communist in the end. On the other hand they will curse us because it is not enough.
I can see that in the future the seaway plan of taking ocean shipping to the head of the great lakes may even be extended. I doubt whether research has been conducted into the engineering problems, but it would seem that the logical thing for Canadians to do is to develop these great resources. I have mentioned our investments in foreign lands to stem the tide of communism, and I have a couple of clippings here which I should like to draw to the attention of the house. The first one is taken from the Christian Science Monitor, and reads as follows:
The sympathy of the world unquestionably goes out to the abjectly poverty-ridden peasants and low paid workers of Egypt and other middle eastern countries. Yet the explanation of their misery is not primarily in foreign exploitation . . . the foreigner has brought to their lands more wealth than he has taken, but is rather in the stubborn feudalism of an oligarchy of land owners and politicians.
Great Britain spent much money in Iran and is getting no credit for it. The same is true of Egypt. In fact she is being blamed. She has spent large sums of money in these countries but the money has not seeped out, as we say, to the man on the street and the man on the land. We get no credit for the immense wealth we have poured into these lands. Then we see extreme efforts at nationalization. Actually in many cases nationalization is the desire on the part of the people to participate in the fruits of someone else's labours. The professional do-gooders who tell us to invest in these foreign lands do not suggest any means whereby we can collect these loans once we make them. If private enterprises intend to make investments in such lands they at least try to make sure the projects are feasible and will pay returns on the gamble they have taken. Even so, in many cases their hopes have turned out to be false.

The Address-Mr. H. O. White
In that regard I should like to mention what has happened in some foreign countries. Loans were made to Burma and later were repudiated. The investment was lost. They took advantage of the tide of nationalism sweeping the country to get out of paying their debts. I have a clipping from the pen of P. M. Richards under the heading "Business Comment". He has this to say:
Dr. Paul Einzig, the British economist and journalist, claims that this course is now proved unsound both financially and politically . . . protected by the UN policy of non-aggression, they plunder foreign investors. And so far from strengthening resistance to Russian or Chinese communist imperialism, this financial investment in backward countries may actually result in inclining them towards communism . . . Looking beyond Iran there is the example of Burma, where British investments ran into many hundreds of millions of dollars. There, Einzig says, the nationalization of British enterprise was virtually confiscation . . . it is deplorable that United Nations policy should be used1 as a shield for illegal seizures and defaults on obligations.
I want to come back to the development of our potential resources and say that the money we are pouring out, in some cases in a vain hope, could be better used at home. I should like to refer to two of our resources that we might develop, the Passamaquoddy project in the maritimes and the South Saskatchewan river project in the western provinces. I think the sooner we go ahead with these things and develop our own country the better position we will be in. I would suggest to the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) that instead of lowering the amount of the loans for housing, we should look after those broader fields we have here.
Coming again to the question of the recent disturbances in Windsor, may I say there are large numbers of men unemployed in that city. This not only applies to Windsor, but also to London and Hamilton. In Windsor a municipal-federal-provincial committee was set up to deal with the problem. We have a national advisory committee on manpower, but so far it has had only one or two meetings, and no others are scheduled for the near future. When we are not getting as much war material as we should and we have idle men, it would seem to point to a serious situation.
For a moment I should like to deal with the shortage of farm labour. The farmers are asked to bring in skilled farm workers from Europe, and to guarantee their wages and living conditions. Today I read a letter from one farmer who in the past few years has had twenty-three of these men come to work for him. Only one or two indicated any desire whatever to remain on the land. These people are using the farmers to get to

this country; then when they become more familiar with conditions here they go to the cities. In a way they are coming here under false pretences. The government should be more firm, and insist that they remain on the land for the duration of their contract. The government expects the Canadian farmer to adhere to his commitments, but they do not see that the man who comes here to work keeps his bargain. It is certainly a one-sided deal.
While I am dealing with farm matters, may I say that on my desk I have a number of cards sent to me by dairymen all over the country. So far as I am concerned, I feel that the dairy industry has been badly treated. Labour and industry are protected by high tariffs. If it is all right for those segments of our economy to be protected by tariffs, it is all right for agriculture to be so protected. I therefore place these cards and complaints of the dairy industry where they belong, on the doorstep of the government.
In the speech from the throne there was mention of legislation concerning the fixing of retail prices. I know many will think that this is a hot potato, and I believe the government thinks it is a hotter potato than anyone else. I want to draw to the government's attention the words of the late James V. For-restal, secretary of defence of the United States, who said:
Politics often get in the way of good government.
How true that is. I believe a good many people in the country recall the prices committee which was set up, and the royal commission which followed it. After several months of investigation the commission produced a voluminous report and found out what the housewife knew before they started, that prices had gone up and were still going up. It has been suggested recently that a committee be set up to study this problem. Actually I believe that is a smoke screen to draw the attention of the people from the fact that the government has not had the courage to deal with the problem.
As the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) mentioned on Friday last, we have on the statute books the Combines Investigation Act. I would think that would be one way in which this problem could be dealt with. When we look at the administration of the Combines Investigation Act we find that apparently the government is in partnership with many of the big companies. The penalties levied on these companies are only a small percentage of their take. So far as the consumers of this country are concerned, that is not sufficient. I would point out that there are others who are guilty of price fixing besides the corner

grocery store and the merchant in the city. Labour, with its minimum prices and contracts for wages, has a certain amount of price fixing. Farmers would like to have an organization by means of which they could have guaranteed floor prices and stabilized markets. In fact, I seem to recall that was one part of the gospel preached by the government. This was the aim of the wheat board and the international wheat agreement, so far as we were concerned. True, the results were perhaps not as satisfactory as we hoped, but the idea behind it was the stabilization of prices and the consequent stabilization of our economy. The examples of the glass, flour and other industries have demonstrated just how far the government is prepared to go.
There is a danger that many small businesses throughout the country will be ruined as a result of the introduction of this legislation. The man on the street and the man on the farm are not too perturbed about it. They are of the opinion that possibly the merchants, as has been said in this house, have charged all the traffic will bear.
There is another matter I wish to bring before the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). Recently it was brought to my attention that a general merchant in my community was refused certain nationally known veterinary remedies, as well as certain other medical supplies. For twenty-five years he has been able to purchase supplies of those products from a wholesaler in the city of London. Since January, 1951, he has been told he can no longer be supplied these goods. This results in hardship to many farmers who depended on that general store for these recognized veterinary remedies and other goods along that line. I would think that would be something that could be investigated under the Combines Investigation Act. Certainly, it is an action in restraint of trade.
If the government is accepting responsibility for the development of the St. Lawrence seaway and the South Saskatchewan river project, as no doubt it is, then the question of the expropriation of land is tied up with that. That is a sore spot with many farmers, when the government move in without so much as a by your leave and establish themselves on your private property. The men say: "I have nothing to do with it; I am just one of the contractors sent in here with a bulldozer, and I am to do this work. You can talk it over with your lawyer or anybody else." I think this is the wrong way to tackle the problem. When the Bell Telephone Company string a line across the country, they go in and make a deal with every farmer whose property they cross, and that deal is completed
The Address-Mr. Beaudry before one man sets foot on the farm for the purpose of digging a hole or erecting a pole. But that is not so with regard to these projects. There is an old saying that possession is nine points of the law. After the contractors and the government have moved in on these various projects, they make an offer of possibly not too much money. Consequently there is disappointment and hard feelings. I would suggest that this matter be looked into before any more government projects are proceeded with where there is any question of the expropriation of private lands. In many cases the farmers are treated just like the dirt under their feet.
One can, of course, always speculate as to what is going to happen; and I am going to speculate with this phrase: The political winds blow soft. I can look into the future and see a reduction of taxes in 1952, with that $500 million surplus to play with. I can see the popular appeal of the seaway and the South Saskatchewan river development. I can see the maritimes promised nearly anything they want. With all this, along with a reduction in the tobacco tax next year, it might be a good year to have an election.
There is something wrong with our economy when Canada, a great agricultural country, from January 1 to July 31 this year imported butter to the time of $2,500,000; cheese to the tune of $1,864,000; fresh pork $3,240,000; bacon, ham and prepared pork, $37,000; canned beef, $3,183,000, to say nothing of many other agricultural products. These figures show that there is certainly something wrong with our economy.


Mr. Roland Beaudry (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, some few days ago, while discussing our budget surplus, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) issued what he termed a challenge. As reported at page 358 of Hansard he said:
Is there one, just one private Liberal member, in this house who will have the temerity during the course of this debate to rise in his place in the house and say: I not only condone, I support this government's taxing policies?
I have not been able to follow the debate very closely. I do not know how many times the challenge has been accepted. In any case I say to him in simple terms: Here is one who accepts it. I want to make myself extremely clear. I do not condone the government's taxing policy. I support it.
First let me say to the hon. member for Eglinton that as he was sitting here with me in 1946, 1947 and 1948, he will recall that I was never loathe to offer to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) constructive criticism, and I am happy to say that

The Address-Mr. Beaudry some of it is embodied in the present legislation. When I state without equivocation that I support the government's taxing policy, I do not stand quite alone. I might remind the challenger, the hon. member for Eglinton, of what was said by the financial critic for the official opposition, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdormell), when he sat for Muskoka-Ontario in 1948, as reported at page 4241 of Hansard:
I said that I approved of budgeting for a surplus, and so I do; but the question is how much of a surplus?
And further:
... I am going to assume that it is practically, say, $500 million.
And further:
I suggest that there should be ... an increase in the exemptions for people in the low income brackets. Just in case anyone wishes to know if I have a figure in mind, I say, no;
Unlike the financial critic for the opposition, the hon. member for Greenwood, Mr. Speaker, I do not have to plead ignorance when I say that I fully support the government's taxing policy. I support the government's taxation policy for definite reasons. I support it, first because it has helped to place this country, and every citizen in it, in the most favourable position of any in the universe. I support it not only because it has helped to place this country as a whole, collectively and individually, in this preferred position in the universe, but because at the same time we have been enabled to decrease our debt while increasing our financial benefits. But if the hon. member wishes to use his time to better advantage than in issuing challenges, he might cast his eye back over the deliberations of this house from 1930 to 1935 and study his country's financial history. He might discover that there is no better illustration than those five years of what his type of thinking will do towards decreasing social benefits while increasing the debt. I support this government's taxing policy because we do not have to plead ignorance, like the hon. member for Greenwood, when veterans ask us for an improvement in pensions; when old age pensions are discussed for everybody over the age of seventy; when families are enabled to enjoy the benefits of the family allowance; when as a country we can contemplate the canalizing of the St. Lawrence without having outside aid or financial assistance; when unemployment holds no more terrors for any citizen in this country; and, Mr. Speaker, when no citizen in this country, save perhaps a few Conservative moneybags, would change places with himself as he was twenty years ago.
I should like to issue a modest challenge of my own to' the hon. member for Eglinton.


Let him rise in his place in this house and suggest the country which he would offer for our consideration as preferable living quarters. Further, let him quote from Hansard what concrete, constructive suggestions have been made by himself or by the financial critic for the opposition which have resulted in improving this country's financial and economic position.
Will you please convey to the hon. member for Eglinton, Mr. Speaker, the information that his challenge has been accepted; and I will gladly contribute to him, so that he may take up my challenge, the thirty-five minutes that I do not need to use.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I intend first of all to make a few remarks about the weather in western Canada and more especially about the weather in the constituency that I represent.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I'll bet the government will not do anything about it.


Victor Quelch: I am not going to blame the
government for this condition. The area I represent is in the east central part of Alberta which, generally speaking, is regarded as one of the semi-dry areas of western Canada. In the past it has been customary for people to pray for rain in order to save their crops. This year apparently all the prayers were answered at once because it started to rain during seeding, thereby delaying the operation of seeding. It rained practically all summer. It rained throughout harvesting and then it started to snow, and it has been snowing practically ever since. As a consequence I think it is safe to say that at least 75 per cent of the crop in that area is under the snow. That of course has created a very difficult situation for the farmers. Their livestock has had to be taken off pasture and fed far earlier in the year than normally is the case, and no doubt long before spring serious food shortages will develop. Many farmers have not been able to thresh their coarse grains; consequently they have no coarse grains to feed their livestock. In view of the fact that only 25 per cent of the crop has been harvested many farmers are going to find it very difficult indeed to finance their obligations and also meet the cost of living until next spring when we hope the crop will be harvested. Therefore if it were possible for the government to find ways and means by which loans could be made to farmers against crops outstanding, crops that are still under the snow, no doubt it would be of great help. I can assure the government that the farmers are waiting with anticipation the final payment

on the 1950 crop, which I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to say will be paid during November.
As I pointed out, the area of Acadia is semi-dry, and for that reason has always been greatly interested in irrigation. Throughout that district, as far back as 1921 the major project, the William Pearce project, was surveyed; and that later became known as the North Saskatchewan project. In recent years other projects, more modified, have been advocated. The Red Deer diversion project is one that all farmers today are interested in. The government has carried out many surveys in connection with that project, and as a matter of fact have already started work on a number of dams on some of the creeks. These dams will all later on be part and parcel of the major project which is known as the Red Deer diversion; but unfortunately these dams on the creeks are dependent upon surface runoff water for their supplies. In dry years there is very little runoff, with the result that the very time water is needed for irrigation none is available. Until such time as the major project, that is, the Red Deer diversion project, is constructed there will be no certainty of water being available for these small dams. Of course that is not the case this year; these dams are overflowing.
Under the Red Deer diversion project a dam 150 feet high would be constructed at Ardley. From that dam water would be carried by gravity a distance of 100 miles south to Coronation. There it would enter two lakes, Hamilton lake and Craig lake. This would provide irrigation for around
500,000	acres. The estimated cost of that project is $15 million. Therefore you can see that the actual cost of irrigation of this land would be very moderate as compared with the cost of irrigating land on other projects. It would also make it possible to support an increased population of 30,000 people in that area. The project would also make it possible to develop power, and that power project would probably be one of the largest in western Canada. It would utilize Buffalo lake as a reservoir, and Buffalo lake has a storage capacity of 1 j million acre feet. We are hoping that the international situation will not prevent the government from going ahead with these projects. I recall that last year the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said he hoped that by the fall of 1950 the surveys would have reached the position where it might be possible for the government to sign an agreement with the provinces. I do not know whether that has been done up to date; nevertheless we are hoping that nothing will be gllowed to interfere with the construction of that project.
The Address-Mr. Quelch
I noticed a report in the paper from the director general of the food and agriculture organization, Mr. Dodd, stating that there is still a very great shortage of food in the world, and that actually the production of food today is barely keeping up with the increasing population. He urges member nations to do everything in their power to increase the production of food. Well, one of the surest ways of increasing the production of food in Canada today would be by the construction of irrigation projects in areas that have facilities in the form of roads, towns, railways and so forth. I know many people have always felt that the land in these semi-dry areas was of a submarginal nature. I think last year and this year proved that, given the moisture, these areas can produce good crops, because this year we have crops in there that would run anywhere from 30 to 50 bushels to the acre. There is nothing wrong with the land. All it needs is moisture. Irrigation would help to guarantee that in that area we could always raise enough feed to carry the cattle on pasture in the summer. One of the greatest difficulties is that while there may be pasture in the summer there may be no feed in the winter, and the cattle either have to be shipped out or feed brought in during the winter, which of course is a very expensive thing for the feeders, and it is not always possible.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, just before the dinner recess I had been stressing the desirability of making an early start upon the construction of the Red Deer diversion irrigation project. I should like now to turn my attention to the two amendments before the house.
I do not think it is necessary to spend any time upon the amendment of the Progressive Conservative party because, after all, it is merely a reiteration of what is contained in the speech from the throne. The subamendment of the C.C.F. reads:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the words "high cost of living," the following words:
such as the making of provision for price controls and the payment of subsidies, where necessary, so as to equalize the sacrifices our people are called upon to make at this time.
It will be noticed that it only calls for price controls and subsidies where necessary. I would agree that when it is necessary to impose price controls they should be imposed.

The Address-Mr. Quelch I think all in the house could agree that it it becomes necessary to impose price controls and subsidies, then they must be imposed. So we in this group have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the subamendment. However I wish also to stress the fact that this was actually the attitude of the government at the last session of parliament, so far as price controls are concerned. Several ministers of the government stated at the last session that they would impose price controls if it became necessary. Therefore I was greatly surprised when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) challenged that statement when it was made by ithe hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Not only had the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made that statement; the Minister of Finance himself had made it. He even went further and said that he would not hesitate to impose price controls if it oecame necessary. The Minister of Finance described as rubbish the statement of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, so I thought I would do well if I were to quote the minister's statement at the last session. On February 12, as reported at page 299 of Hansard, he said:
On the order paper there is a resolution upon which a bill will be founded, asking for wider powers of control. I think it is fair to say that the government will not hesitate to recommend and to bring into force such control measures-whether . they are price control measures, wage control measures or otherwise-as it deems necessary-
And so on. If the Minister of Finance wishes to apply the word "rubbish" to that statement, that is his prerogative. I was amazed to see that he should now turn round and say that has not been the government's attitude in the past. Perhaps I should quote what was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he made a similar declaration. This was his statement on February 8, as reported at page 185 of Hansard:
I am not ruling out the possibility that sweeping price control measures will be needed, should the developing situation make action necessary-
Strangely enough, when I followed the Minister of Trade and Commerce I criticized him for having made that statement. I said that by making it he was actually encouraging industry in this country to increase prices. I said: You are telling industry that you are not going to impose price controls today, but that you will possibly do it in the future. Consequently industry will say that if there is danger of price controls being instituted in the future they will raise their prices while they have the opportunity to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And you were right.


Victor Quelch: What happened? In a short time the prices did go up. It looked as though industry took that as a cue to raise prices. Yet today the Minister of Finance tells us the government never stated that if necessary price controls would be imposed in the future.
I think I understand why today the government does not want to introduce price controls. Perhaps before I go on to that, however, I should say that just for the very reason I criticized the government at that time for stating that price controls might become necessary in the future, I will say that I think the government is right today in stating most emphatically that it has no intention of imposing price controls. I say it should continue to make that statement right up to the very moment it decides to bring them in.
I am reminded that the chancellor of the exchequer in England denied most emphatically that they were going to devalue the pound. Yet we know that a few weeks later the pound was devalued. He knew it would cause wild speculation if they intimated that such action might be taken in the future. So I hope the government is now merely stating that it is not going to impose price controls because it realizes that any statement to the contrary would have serious results on the economy of the country. The government realizes now that if price controls are to be imposed, it must be done without warning.
On the other hand I realize why the government is hesitant to bring the controls in. First of all the Minister of Finance is using the inflation of prices for the purposes of expanding his revenue. We heard a former minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, bitterly criticizing any government that tried to finance through inflation. Yet that is exactly what this government is doing. The minister knows too well that the higher prices go, the higher will be his revenues. Therefore I do not think he is very much interested in seeing prices reduced at the present time. I recall, too, that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke in this debate he pointed out that we are now able to develop many resources that we could not develop before prices went up. In other words now that prices have gone up it becomes possible to develop certain resources, and no doubt the government is anxious that those resources should be developed.
To be absolutely fair I believe I should say that the government is no doubt hesitant in imposing price controls because it realizes that controls entail a certain amount of regimentation, and that the people of Canada do not like regimentation. The government realizes, therefore, that if price controls are

to be introduced it must be done with a minimum degree of regimentation. Unfortunately, however, not only has the government failed to take any action to control prices but by its own taxation policies it has actually increased prices in this country, by the imposition of an increased sales tax and increased excise taxes, and moreover by the surcharge.
It will be recalled that when the government's taxation policy was announced many members in the opposition prophesied that as a result of that policy prices in Canada would rise. It was obvious that prices would rise as a result of the sales tax and excise taxes, but there were many who disputed the suggestion that the surcharge would increase prices. Let me quote the Ottawa Evening Journal of November 2, which makes this statement in regard to the railways:
An increase of between 5 and 6 per cent was asked to compensate the companies for the 20 per cent "defence surcharge" on income tax in the last federal budget.
The same happens, of course, in connection with labour, as a result of increased taxes and increased prices. Labour has asked for increased wages, and that has had the result of pushing prices up still further. We in this group have always insisted that if we had an over-all system of price control we would have to have wage controls at the same time. I am aware of the fact that labour often disputes that fact. They are opposed to the idea of wage controls, and claim that wages are already controlled by agreement. That may be true in some cases; but even where there are agreements, when those agreements expire there is often a demand for increased wages in the new agreements to be signed. So while on the one hand labour insists that price controls should be imposed without any control of wages, on the other hand the farmers take the opposite view. The farmers of this country are not asking for price control, but they are insisting that if a system of overall price controls be instituted, at the same time wages should be controlled. That was made perfectly clear in a resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. That being the case it is no wonder the government hesitate, because they are between two fires. If they bring in price control without wage control, they run foul of the farmers of this country; if they bring in price control with wage control, they run foul of labour. So they are between the devil and the deep blue sea.
When I was home during the recess I contacted a number of farmers to find their reaction to the proposal for price control. In every case I found doubt as to the wisdom
The Address-Mr. Quelch of the government going ahead with price control. Why? Because they were doubtful whether this government would be competent to bring in price control on a basis that would be equitable to all groups concerned. I think they had good reason for fear. They recalled that in the first few years after the war they as farmers actually paid for a program of stabilization by accepting prices lower than they could have received elsewhere. In return for accepting those lower prices they were promised a post-war program of stabilized prices that would bear a fair relationship to the prices of other commodities.
The farmers were very glad when the Agricultural Prices Support Act was made permanent last year, but unfortunately there is nothing concrete in that act. It merely states that the government will buy farm commodities at prices that beax a fair relationship to the prices of other commodities. What the farmers are asking today is a f ormula placed in the act to determine how parity will be obtained. When I spoke last year on the speech from the throne I outlined how a formula could be worked out. I shall not take the time to repeat it now, but time and again the federation of agriculture have told the government that they would be only too willing to co-operate with them in working out a formula for parity that can be inserted right in the act. If that assurance were given the farmers it would do a great deal to remove doubt and uncertainty as to the government's future policy toward agriculture.
Recent statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) indicate that neither of these gentlemen has a proper understanding of the agricultural situation. On October 15 the Prime Minister made this statement, as reported on page 38 of Hansard:
The prices that our farmers are getting for their produce, in spite of the fact that they are paying higher prices for things they have to buy. is giving them a larger share of the national income at this time than ever before.
The Prime Minister did not substantiate that statement with figures. The reason that statement was not substantiated is that it is not a statement of fact. Mind you, the Prime Minister did not say the farmers are getting a larger gross income than they have ever received before; he said that notwithstanding the high cost of production they are receiving a larger share of the national income than they have ever received before. There has been only one period during the past forty years when the farmers of Canada have received parity prices, that is a fair share of the national income, that was the period
724	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Quelch 1915-19. During those years the farmers, representing 33J per cent of the national population, received 33 J per cent of the national income.
What share of the national income are the farmers receiving today? The iron, member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) obtained figures from the bureau of statistics which show that today the farmers are receiving 9 [DOT] 95 per cent of the national income. There is a vast difference between 9-95 per cent and 33J per cent. Today the farmers represent approximately 25 per cent of the national population. You do not have to go back as far as 1915-19. I have here the percentages of the national income which farmers have received during the years 1926 to 1947, and I shall quote a few as follows:
Year	Per Cent
1926		 17
1927		 14-9
1928		 14-6
1931	 4-5
1933	 4 1
1939	 10-8
1942		 13
1943		 10-7
1944		 12-5
1945		 9-9
1950	 9-95
The Prime Minister says they are getting a larger share of the national income than they have ever received before. As long as the government is suffering from that delusion it is going to be hard for them to introduce a policy that will be fair to agriculture. The Minister of Trade and Commerce made an error similar to that made by the Prime Minister. Last session he told this house that during the five-year wheat pool period 194549 the farmer received a higher return for his wheat than in any other five-year period. That statement is just as incorrect as the statement by the Prime Minister to which I have just referred. I have farmed in this country since 1909, and as soon as the Minister of Trade and Commerce made that statement I knew it was not correct. I looked up the figures in the Canada Year Book, and found that during the first world war the highest prices for wheat were those received from 1916 to 1920. The parity period was 1915-19, but the period of the highest prices for wheat was 1916-20. I wrote the bureau of statistics and asked them to give me a price index for wheat during the period 1945-49 based upon 100 for the period 1916-20. I asked them also to give me a price index for farm machinery for the same period. I find that the price index for wheat during the period referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was 87-5; in other words, it had dropped from 100 to 87-5. At the same time the price index for farm machinery had risen from 100 to 174-4. In 1949 we find that [Mr. Quelch.l

the price index for wheat stood at 87, while the price index for farm machinery had risen to 209 1. Since that period the price of wheat has gone down and the price of farm machinery has gone up. In 1950 the price index for farm machinery stood at 218, and there has been a further increase since that time. I noticed that when the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) spoke he said he did not think it would be wise to raise the price of wheat, but he thought the price of farm machinery should be reduced. He thought the price of farm machinery was altogether too high, and I think the figures I have just quoted fully substantiate his claim. However, he recommended that a commission be set up to investigate farm prices. Personally I would not have any faith in such a commission because I am afraid that if it did recommend action to reduce farm implement prices the government would merely refer the recommendation to a committee, as they have done in the matter of resale price maintenance, and that would be the last thing we would hear about it for quite a long time.
There is another reason I do not think it would do any good to refer the question to a commission, and I will tell the house why. Some years ago I attended a convention of the United Farmers of Alberta. At that convention the main speaker was the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). During the question period the report of one of these commissions which had investigated farm machinery, and which indicated that the prices were too high, was quoted. The Minister of Agriculture was asked why he did not do anything about the price of farm machinery. His reply was that he thought the price was too high but he asked them to remember that he was merely one of a cabinet of sixteen and that he had not been able to convince the other fifteen. What chance would he have today when he is only one of twenty? In addition, there are the appendages, the twelve parliamentary assistants. How would he be able to convince that number if he was not able to convince fifteen in the past?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Especially the appendages.


Victor Quelch: Therefore I would say that if you are going to bring down the price of agricultural products you will first of all have to bring down the price of things that enter into their cost. As far as I know there is only one commodity in this country the price of which is controlled, and that is wheat. Is the price of wheat too high or too low? The price of wheat today is lower than it was in 1948 and 1949, the last two years of the British wheat agreement. At that time it was $2 a bushel. Today under the international wheat agreement it is $1.80 or $1.89

in Canadian funds. Since that time, however, the cost of living has risen 35 points. Therefore how can anyone say that the price of wheat is as high as it should be?
What is the basis of the price of wheat today? It is nothing more or less than government guessing or speculation. I say that for this reason. In 1948 and 1949, when we were discussing the international wheat agreement in this house, I criticized the agreement on the ground that in trying to set the price of wheat in advance the government were merely guessing as to what the price should be. Therefore I urged that, instead of guessing at a price for the future, they should tie the price of wheat to the price level so that if the price level went up the price of wheat would go up and if the price level went down the price of wheat would go down. That would be fair to both the consumer and the producer because if the price level went down the farmers should be able to buy things more cheaply and therefore could afford to take less for their wheat. If, on the other hand, the price level went up they should receive a higher price for their wheat because they would have to pay a higher price for the things they would have to buy. In other words, we have been consistently subsidizing the Canadian consumers, and at the present time the farmers are actually receiving 43 cents a bushel less for their wheat than is obtained by the wheat board for what they sell to nations outside the international wheat agreement as class II wheat.
I disagree entirely with the statement that was made by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) during his speech. He wanted an embargo placed upon the export of cattle. Why pick out beef alone? Why say there should be an embargo on the export of cattle? What about other commodities in short supply that are exported, thus causing higher prices? I would say that the farmers would very much like to see the government place an embargo on the export of lumber. For the past few years we have had a great deal of difficulty in getting the lumber we wanted in western Canada, and the price of lumber has risen to a far greater extent than the price of farm commodities. In the early stages of the war one could buy No. 1 shiplap in the west for $30 a thousand. Today for lumber that is far inferior in quality you have to pay $120, an increase of over 300 per cent. When people start talking about an embargo on any agricultural commodity let them at the same time ask for an embargo on the export of these things that enter into the cost of producing farm commodities.
The Address-Mr. Quelch
The main reason there is so much misunderstanding with respect to the price of agricultural products in Canada today is the fact that the bureau of statistics has been using the 1935-39 period as the basis for their price index. It is well to remember that during that period the prices of farm products were away below the cost of production. They were at the depression level. Farmers were having to allow their capital to depreciate. During that period they had to accept a standard of living far below what might be considered subnormal. Therefore with such misunderstanding regarding agriculture farmers are somewhat dubious about asking the government to impose an over-all system of price control. Let the government introduce a parity formula into the Agricultural Prices Support Act. That would do more to remove that doubt than anything else the government could do.
I was very much interested in the speech by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. I am not going to have time to deal with it fully, but I should like to refer briefly to the statements he made that interested me. He told us there were plenty of goods in the country, that there was no shortage. I see he is in the house so perhaps I should quote what he said. At page 159 of Hansard for October 18 he said:
Many countries have grave shortages of consumer goods and a great abundance of purchasing power. In this country today there is no real shortage of consumer goods.
Then again he said we have an excess of purchasing power and sufficient consumer goods; therefore there is no real shortage of goods in Canada. If there are plenty of goods then it cannot be charged that people are bidding against each other in order to get goods that are not in short supply. The goods are there. What does it mean? It merely means that industry today says to itself that there is enough money in circulation to pay higher prices than are being paid for certain goods, and they are going to have some of that money. Therefore they will raise prices. It is nothing more or less than a straight case of profiteering.
I will give the government a very good example of that. When it was announced over the radio that the cost of living had risen to 190-4 it was stated that the main cause of the increase was a rise in the price of textiles. What is the situation regarding the textile industry in Canada today? The textile industry is in a slump. It is having difficulty selling its production. The reason I say that is because I had a letter from a man in Norway wanting to come to Canada to work in the knitting mills. He wanted to

The Address-Mr. Quelch know what the chances of employment were. I telephoned the immigration department and asked what chance he would have to get a job in Canada. They said he could obtain a job in practically any industry except the textile industry because it is in a slump and is having difficulty in selling its production. What possible excuse is there for the textile industry to raise prices when they cannot sell their existing goods? Can the minister say there are too many dollars chasing too few goods? They have goods there that they cannot sell.
It is nothing more or less than a straight case of profiteering. The textile industry's sales were reduced and they wanted to maintain their profits, so they raised the price of their goods to try to get the same return from the sale of a reduced quantity. I was also told that the situation would be remedied very soon because large defence orders were pending which would put the textile industry back into full production. That being the situation, surely the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance would agree that the most logical way of dealing with it-a situation which is nothing more or less than straight profiteering and not a question of too many dollars chasing too few goods- would be price control. The best method would be price control, not instead of increased taxation, not instead of borrowing, but in addition to them. I would say that at the very least we could certainly impose price control on the mark-up of the goods imported into this country. Such a move would have a beneficial influence upon the prices of goods produced in this country.
In the few minutes left I should like to refer to one other matter. I believe the government made a mistake in raising the interest on savings bonds. By doing that the government is bound to increase the debt charges against the country. It is all very well to boast that you are reducing the amount of the national debt, but if you are going to increase interest charges you are going to increase the debt charges against the people. No doubt the minister will argue that if the government had not increased the interest rates on bonds the people would not have been willing to buy those bonds. After all if, in order to maintain the economy on an even keel, it is necessary to reduce the amount of purchasing power in circulation, and the government decides to do so by borrowing the savings of the people, then if the people refuse to buy savings bonds the government would be fully justified, in my opinion, in bringing in a system of compulsory savings such as existed during the war. After all, a system of compulsory savings provides a far more effective control over the money in circulation than any system


of selling bonds, because when the people buy bonds today they can sell them tomorrow if they so desire. The government has no control over that money. We know quite well that under pressure many people have bought bonds, and within a few weeks have sold them again. On the other hand if a system of compulsory savings were used to withdraw the money from circulation, then the government could keep that money out of circulation until such time as the general situation warranted returning it.
In closing I would say it is quite evident that the government's anti-inflationary measures have not been effective in controlling prices in this country. There does not appear to be any immediate likelihood that government policy will have that effect. Therefore until such time as the government is in a position to control prices effectively in order to lessen the burden on the people, I would say they are under a definite obligation to take steps to increase the purchasing power of those people who are in the extremely low income bracket. The group of people that come to my mind before any other group are the recipients of war veterans allowances. How can we expect people to live on $40 a month or $70 for a married couple under today's conditions? I was quite disappointed when the government announced it had no intention of setting up a committee to deal with this question this session. It is the intention to set up a committee next year, but in the meantime these people have to manage somehow or other on that miserable allowance. I believe the government should reconsider that action, and either set up the committee this session or take immediate action to increase the war veterans allowance to $50 a month for a single person and $100 a month for a married couple.


Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: Like those who have preceded me in this debate, Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to pay tribute to the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I believe the practice that has been followed in this parliament for many years is really an excellent one, that either the mover or seconder gives his address in the French language. It is very fortunate also that the members who participate in this debate are from different sections of this country. I was impressed with the sincerity of the remarks of the hon. member for Beauharnois. I felt that he had the interests of his people very much at heart, but with that he had a broad vision of the good of Canada as a whole.
I know all members were impressed with the zeal and vigour of the remarks of the

hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River. I only wish that more information about that marvellous northland of ours could be given to the rest of Canada. I feel it is too bad that more Canadian citizens have not emulated the example of two of our governors general *vho have gone from one end of the Yukon ;o the other, and have visited many parts of :he Northwest Territories. I thank the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River for the splendid picture he painted of that great section of Canada which he represents, and for his conception of how his section can fit in with and benefit the rest of this country. Having members of this type demonstrates the size and might of this great country of ours.
Much has been said in this debate, and quite rightly so, on the subject of inflation. Inflation respects no man's position. No matter what his station in life, he has to pay for inflation. If it were a phenomenon peculiar to this country I would say the government could do something about it, but inflation is something that has swept across the whole world. If we in Canada were to say we were going to stop this insidious inflation, I believe we could be likened to King Canute who once stood on the seashore of England and ordered the waves of the ocean to roll back. The very sound of the word "inflation" is insidious. I was particularly interested, and I might say educated, by the remarks of the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair). I consider that in his speech he outlined, concisely and logically, the influences that have brought about inflation throughout the world, and the influences that are at work within our own country.
I have this morning's issue of a newspaper which has never been known to shout the virtues of the Liberal party from the housetops. I should like to quote from an editorial appearing in the Montreal Gazette, in which much of the debate that has taken place in this house on the subject of inflation is condensed. Mention is also made of the breakthrough of prices beyond the control limit set in the United States. Referring to the actions of this government the editorial states:
By declining to impose price controls now the government of Canada has not taken, politically speaking, the easiest course. But it has taken, economically speaking, the soundest one.
Yes, it is much easier for the government to listen to the popular clamour than to what would be the practical solution. Since the war certain other nations within the British commonwealth have consistently endeavoured to control prices. Probably the most outstanding example is Great Britain itself, where inflation has burst the bounds of any controls set by the socialist government
The Address-Mr. Fulford there. I know it is not pleasant to make comparisons. As has been so well said, comparisons are odious. Nevertheless, last fall while travelling in Australia and New Zealand I discovered that the chief hue and cry in those two sister countries in the commonwealth was with respect to the high cost of everything. Taking into consideration the depreciated value of the pound and changing it into Canadian dollars we found that prices in Australia and New Zealand were high. Just this morning an article appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail stating that prices have gone completely out of bounds in Australia, that the government over there are in a desperate condition and a serious quandary.
Actually, with regard to inflation there is a strange paradox. During a period of rising prices we find that people are prosperous, are working and are able to purchase articles. But if deflation is brought on, or if an attempt is made to bring down prices, unemployment becomes rife, wages are lowered, and the purchasing power of the people is reduced, with all the consequent evils that follow. Much as we should like to see a great reduction in present prices, I do not believe it would be to the general good of Canada to have this condition brought about even if we could do so; and I have read what economists have said with regard to this matter. If we take the advice of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and control our purchasing, try to produce more-whether it be by longer hours or by improved machinery-and increase the amount of consumer goods in the country, a levelling off could be effected. If we could do that it would certainly be possible to maintain a price level, high as that may seem to be to many.
Certainly in times such as ours people would not tolerate rationing. Anyone who has been to England in recent years-that is, in years since the war-will have found that one of the chief topics of conversation everywhere in that country is condemnation of their rationing laws. Reference has been made in this house to the matter of rationing, and it has been suggested that we in this country have purse rationing. I deplore remarks like that. They savour too much of soap box oratory, the kind that pits class against class, making some people envious of others. I do not think that type of approach is helping the situation any, nor do I think it contributes in any way to a solution of the problems that face us.
In that regard I should like to quote from the magazine Time of October 29, 1951, a statement attributed to Arnold J. Toynbee,

The Address-Mr. Fulford the great historian of this century. These remarks were published in the New York Times magazine:
Can we guess what the outstanding feature of our twentieth century will appear to be in the perspective of three hundred years? . . . My own guess is that our age will be remembered chiefly neither for its horrifying crimes nor for its astonishing inventions but for its having been the first age since the dawn of civilization, some five or six thousand years back, in which people dared to think it practicable ... to make the ideal of welfare for all a practical objective instead of a mere Utopian dream.
It is strange how two sets of eyes can see the same object in an entirely different light. A number of years ago my wife and I were travelling in Russia with some people who had leftist sympathies, to say the least. We visited workmen's clubs, and we would compare notes when we got back to the hotel. I would see the cracks in the walls where the snow was seeping through. The others who were with us would see the fire in the grate and the easy chairs. Some people can see Canada today as a country in which there is much want. Some can use statistical figures to show that all is not well. But in going around to factories I see the parking lots filled with workers' cars; in going into the average home I see all the modern electrical labour-saving devices, electric refrigerators, radios, washing machines, electrically stoked furnaces. One can see these evidences of prosperity all over the country, both in cities and through the rural districts. I believe what I see with my eyes. I would much prefer to rely on what I see in that way than on figures, drawn up by some statistician, purporting to prove something but which in reality just jumble the mind. At the risk of repeating an old cliche, I would remind hon. members of the old saying that figures do not lie but liars can figure.
The group for whom I personally have a great deal of sympathy are the so-called white collar group whose salaries have not gone up as have salaries in other lines of endeavour. I refer to clerks in the stores, bookkeepers and those in similar types of employment. I also feel for the elderly people who will be greatly helped by the old age pension when it becomes universal after January 1, but who nevertheless are forced to live on the income from low yield investments-the so-called blue ribbon investments such as government bonds-and whose income has remained constant in spite of the heavy increase in the cost of living. I feel that a definite effort should be made to help persons in that class.
Actually it is rather amusing to me to see a certain section of the Canadian press condemning this government for having a surplus. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if it were


a deficit rather than a surplus that same section of the press would be howling to the hilltops. I feel that, having regard to our financial affairs Canada is the envy of the world. All we have to do is to look around and see the great amount of investment capital that is flocking into this country. Even if a certain group of Canadians do not feel that we are on financially sound ground, the rest of the world appreciates what we have over here. Is it any crime to write $500 million off the national debt this year? After all, $500 million off the national debt means an annual saving in interest of $15 million. At that rate it would take more than 20 years to write off all the national debt, but in so doing we would be saving $300 million a year in interest charges, or enough to pay family allowances.
I should like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris), and I wish he were in his seat. His policies are now beginning to bear fruit. I understand that up to the end of September we had received the largest number of immigrants that had entered Canada in any year since the war. Canada needs a larger population. Looking at it from the purely mercenary point of view, every immigrant who comes to Canada means that our per capita debt is decreased; but far more important than that, every immigrant who comes to our shores increases the earning power of our country. Many more are needed to develop the potential resources of Canada.
Last week it was indeed an inspiring sight for us sitting in this house to look up at the diplomatic gallery and see the soldiers, sailors and airmen wearing the uniforms of all the united nations who are fighting for the freedom of mankind in Korea. I am just a little afraid that a certain group of Canadians are becoming a bit complacent. We can be proud of the achievements of our fighting men in Korea, yet at times one wonders whether they are not an almost forgotten lot. There is a type of person who feels that the Korean expeditionary force is useless. That is the type of person who must be aroused from his lethargy. One excellent way of arousing him from that lethargy is to have a properly organized civil defence service. I was very glad to read in this morning's Globe and Mail a statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to the good roads conference held in Toronto last Saturday night, in which he outlined the progress that has been made in regard to the civil defence organization in this country. On the night of October 24 the town of Brockville had the honour of having the Minister of

National Health and Welfare as its guest. We also had many more people who are important in the public life of this country. Along with the minister came Major General F. F. Worthington, civil defence co-ordinator; Colonel M. P. Cawdron, General Worthington's assistant; Fire Marshal W. J. Scott of Ontario; Colonel K. B. F. Smith, representing Hon. G. Arthur Walsh, Ontario co-ordinator; R. Richter Townsend, chief of the New York state bureau of fire and personal representative of Governor Thomas E. Dewey. There were also representatives from the municipal councils of many neighbouring communities, mayors and aldermen from Cornwall, Prescott, Smiths Falls, Gananoque, Kingston, who had come to see the civil defence demonstration that was put on. I only regret that so little publicity was given this event, because it made me very proud of the town that I have the honour to call my home. It was a splendid exercise and was highly complimented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who stated that other communities right across Canada could well emulate the progress that had been made in Brockville in regard to civil defence.
At this point I would like to pay a special tribute to C.B.C. Broadbent, the co-ordinator for the town, who came to Ottawa last winter to attend the special civil defence school that was held here. I shall not go into the mechanics of the event except to say that 500 or 600 citizens took part. Each one was given a special duty. Theoretically the town had been raided by an enemy through the air. Each one know what his duty was, but no one knew where the targets were to be. A central control office was set up about three miles out, which was kept informed by wireless of the targets that were hit. The whole community co-operated. There was a virtual blackout from eight o'clock in the evening until ten o'clock. Very few disregarded the appeal of the mayor to see that all lights were out in the homes and in the shop windows, or if they were left on the blinds were firmly secured. There was the closest co-operation among such organizations as the medical profession, the nursing profession, the St. John Ambulance Corps, the Red Cross, the league of frontiersmen	and	all private	citizens.Special mention	should be	made	of theco-operation of	the	police	departments,
municipal, provincial and federal, as well as the Brockville fire department.
All who saw	this	event	were	greatly
impressed, especially the representative who had come from Albany, New York, as the representative of Governor Dewey. At this point I should like to mention that towns along the international border had offered
The Address-Mr. Fulford to send no fewer than 40 pieces of firefighting equipment. Right up to last moment it was thought that they would be able to do this. Unfortunately it was found that there are no statutes in Canada granting immunity against personal or property damage to vehicles participating in a civil defence demonstration. For the good of all communities which are to set up these demonstrations, action should be taken in this country to see that those taking part in the demonstration are not held liable for any damage that may be caused. I mention that also because of the fact that every panel truck in Brockville was commandeered as an emergency ambulance. Everyone who owned a panel truck got it out; yet each one of those men was taking a chance in participating in this event if there had been an accident.
To make the exercise more realistic an attempt was made to obtain aeroplanes at either Trenton or Uplands from the Royal Canadian Air Force. In spite of the earnest efforts of the town and others we were unable to get this co-operation. I suggest that closer co-operation could and should exist between the Department of National Defence and the co-ordinators of civil defence operations. I know the criticism has been made that insufficient funds have been voted for civil defence in Canada. Perhaps it would be interesting to the house to know that, with 500 or 600 people who participated in this event and put on this most realistic demonstration, the total cost to the community was less than $300. I would add that, so far as the equipment was concerned, that provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the province of Ontario was adequate, and will serve well in* the event that, some day, it may be necessary for civil defence forces to go into action. Certainly this demonstration drove home to the minds of the people of the community the fact that attack is not inevitable. Certainly it drove home to them the fact that we are living in perilous times. I can assure the house that any complacency that may have existed was dissipated after this magnificent display was put on.
No member from eastern Ontario could help mentioning in this debate the St. Lawrence seaway. I should like at the outset to pay special tribute to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) who took a broad and magnanimous view by stating that in building the seaway a large part of Canada would benefit materially, and that what was good for any part was good for the whole. I say it was a magnanimous view because there have been others who have not shared that view and who, I am afraid, have allowed

The Address-Mr. Fulford sectionalism to interfere with the breadth of their vision. We have seen this great scheme buffeted from pillar to post for many years in the legislative chambers of our neighbour to the south. I only wish it were possible for the American people to realize that what is good for Canada is good also for them; and that whereas we will benefit materially from the building of the St. Lawrence seaway and the development of its tremendous hydroelectric energy, they will benefit equally and perhaps to an even greater extent.
Recently-and I say "recently"; to be specific I have here the issue of June 9, 1951 -there appeared in the English magazine The Sphere a series of pictures. I wish it were possible to have them reproduced in Hansard. However, I shall read the short article accompanying the pictures because I believe it reveals the great awareness in Europe of the tremendous advantages of canal systems for both navigation and hydroelectric purposes. I believe it will be of interest to hon. members to see how this great Rhineland canal system has been financed. The article accompanying the picture is as follows:
One of the most remarkable changes which has taken place in Europe in modern times is the rapid growth of Swiss trade and industry. Zurich, where the 600th anniversary celebrations recently took place, is now one of the great commercial capitals of the continent, and Basle, second city of the confederation, is now one of the most important traffic centres of Europe, not least because of its loading and unloading facilities at its extension of the Rhine lateral canal, known as the Grand canal of Alsace, which is now being pushed northward from Kembs to Ottmarsheim. The sections involved in these latest extensions are in French territory, and from a hydro-electric point of view France will be a big beneficiary, notably from the new power station at Ottmarsheim; but the implications as far as Switzerland is concerned- are immense, for Basle more than ever looms as one of the great river ports of the Rhineland system. This linked with the fact that the large area of the Swiss midlands between the Alps and the Rhine has developed more and more as a manufacturing area, although still retaining the aspect of an agricultural province, means that exports and imports are likely to flow ever faster along this famed route.
Construction work began on the extension of the Grand canal of Alsace in April, 1948, the plan, financed by Marshall aid funds and equipment, involving the excavation of 19,000,000 cubic metres of banking, the construction of two locks and the building of one new power station at Ottmarsheim.
The most modern plant has been brought in mostly from America, and the scheme is so far advanced that the opening of the new section of the canal is forecast for November.
This is by no means the end of the scheme. Between Basle and Strasbourg there is a difference in level of 60 feet, and it is hoped eventually to extend the canal system all the way northwards to Strasbourg, France's great eastern port, building en route no fewer than five more power stations. The scheme will be a blessing to the whole Rhineland, bringing electrical power to farms and to industry and to a host of homes.
For the Swiss, who have remained so steadfastly outside the turmoil of modern Europe, these Marshall aid works have no charitable implications,

for Switzerland is well able to pay in dollars for all her imports from the U.S.A. and her special position in relation to E.C.A. is fully recognized.
Switzerland, however, has urgent problems to face with regard to industrial development and electrical generation.
In the former category she has two other big canal schemes in mind. One relates to the linking of the Rhine and the navigable Rh6ne by the Helvetia canal along her western border.
Looking at a map of Europe I learned that Basle is approximately 400 miles from the sea. So that hon. members may have some idea of the size of this canal, I shall read the description of one of the illustrations showing a lock now nearing completion, so they may compare it with the size of the locks at the American Soo and the locks on the Welland canal. It states:
One of the mighty locks on the Grand canal of Alsace; This lock on the new section north of Kembs is 600 feet long, 74 feet deep and 75 feet wide. It is hoped that this section, extending northwards from Basle towards Strasbourg, will be open in November.
I know nothing can be said in this chamber to influence the policies of another country. It does seem deplorable, however, that the country which is financing this tremendous scheme in Europe has not seen fit to help us develop the mighty St. Lawrence seaway. But if that unwillingness persists, then I am very glad to see that government policy in Canada has been stated to the effect that Canada will complete the St. Lawrence seaway by her own efforts. Such a development would bring cheaper freight rates to the farmers of western Canada, enable the development of the great Labrador ore fields, and make available vast quantities of electrical energy which, in Ontario alone, would amount to no less than 1,100,000 horsepower. It would make every lake port a potential seaport, and bring the trade of the world to the middle of this great continent.
As I have mentioned, there has been certain opposition to this scheme, though it is hard for me to understand why there should be. It seems to be purely of a sectional nature. Attempts have been made to make central Canada look as though it wanted no other part of Canada to be developed, but that is not the case. This is a matter that transcends all party lines. I am sure every hon. member wants to see the natural resources of Canada properly developed. If the west coast needs developing, if Alberta or any other section of the prairie provinces needs developing, if the maritimes are in need of development this parliament is ready to give earnest and sincere attention to all such matters brought before it.
We in Ontario are anxious to see the coal and steel industry of Nova Scotia prosper. We are interested in the possibilities of the

Passamaquoddy scheme. We would like to see Cape Breton connected to the mainland by a causeway. We would like to see the eventual construction of the Chignecto canal. These are not sectional matters; they are things that pertain to all of Canada. I think all hon. members want to see the great natural resources of this country developed for the future welfare of the people of our land.
Perhaps eastern Ontario will benefit most from the development of power, as there will be literally 1,100,000 horsepower at our back door; but eastern Ontario would not expect to have any power which it is not equipped to take. It is up to us to see that we do our share in developing the industries and natural resources of this section of the country so we will be able to take our share of the power. We do not want to see it all go to central Ontario, and I know it will not.
The first iron smelter in Upper Canada was opened in Leeds county, which I have the honour to represent, over one hundred years ago. The first lead mine in Upper Canada was operated there. I can remember in my own time when mica and graphite were mined to a large extent in the county. The ores are still there and perhaps with modern methods and cheap power it may again be profitable to work these veins. We have all watched with the greatest interest the development work of the Bethlehem steel corporation at Marmora, north of Belleville. I am not a geologist, but I am told that the same outcropping of rock extends all over this section of the province.
As I say, one hundred years ago iron ore was mined in Leeds county, put in barges and taken through the Rideau canal to Kingston, where it was transshipped to lake ports to be smelted. That traffic stopped with the discovery of the Mesabi range, but the Mesabi range may no longer be the great producer of ore it used to be. It may be that the great natural resources of eastern Ontario can again be economically developed.
We cannot conclude a discussion of the St. Lawrence seaway without remarking on the splendid co-operation that has existed between the premier of Ontario, the chairman of the hydro electric commission and the federal authorities. I regret that this matter has been brought into the provincial political field. A project that means so much to our country should never be brought down to the level of petty politics. I am sure the vast majority of the people of Canada realize that it is only through the co-operation of the provincial and federal governments that such a scheme can be brought into successful operation.
The Address-Mr. Gagnon
The St. Lawrence seaway has been the dream of all of us who live in the eastern part of this province. As a little boy I remember men discussing the possibilities of the seaway. We actually believe it will be started with or without the co-operation of the United States. We cannot help but feel confident that the great natural resources of this country will be usefully and economically developed by means of this great power development which will serve the whole Dominion of Canada. Beneficial results will be felt in all sections of the country, in the prairie provinces and in Labrador, that great new part of our tenth province. Again I repeat that what is good for any part of Canada is good for the whole.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, the speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, in addition to providing me with an opportunity of congratulating the mover and seconder, also allows me to say a word or two on a subject I had already broached during the last session.
On June 27 of this year I drew the attention of the house to the case of Flight Lieutenant J. J. Desrochers of Quebec, unfairly discharged from the R.C.A.F. after thirteen years of loyal and continued service.
The facts then reported were neither denied nor contradicted. The particulars stated were clear and true, and yet the questions put have remained unanswered.
When I stated that Flight Lieutenant J. J. Desrochers had been discharged because of justified activities in favour of French-speaking compatriots, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) answered that this man was discharged because he had failed to pass the qualifying exams in 1948, 1949 and 1950.
To set the record straight, to dispel all doubts in the minds of those who like to know how our fellow countrymen are faring and, above all, in justice to this young man, whose career was shattered by the French-baiting brass hats of the air force, I will read a letter written by Flight Lieutenant Desrochers, on July 2 last, to the newspaper Le Devoir, a copy of which he sent to me:
Quebec, July 2, 1951
Editor,
Le Devoir,
Montreal.
Sir,
With reference to your article of June 28. under the title "Mr. Gagnon tells the house about R.C.A.F. Officer J. J. Desrochers," I beg you to offer me the hospitality of your columns in order that I may enlighten the public with respect to the explanation the Hon. Brooke Claxton gave of my dismissal, In reply to the speech made by the independent member for Chicoutimi, Mr. Paul Edmond Gagnon.

The Address-Mr. Gagnon
The general staff which has undoubtedly forwarded to the Minister of National Defence the explanation that my dismissal had been necessary due to my having failed the 1948, 1949 and 1950 examinations, has misinformed the minister. I prove right now this statement by certifying that this same general staff which established these tests in 1948 stated in its official directions, R.C.A.F. Administration, Series F, that these tests were not compulsory and that their only purpose was to determine whether an officer was qualified for promotion from his present rank to the next higher rank in the military hierarchy.
I shall go further yet. I am submitting to this end an official document signed by Group Captain J. G. Stephenson, for the Chief of the Air Staff, under date of March 22, 1950, giving details as to the result of examinations I wrote in 1950, from which it will be realized that I am asked to rewrite at the 1951 term the only subject in which I failed to secure the required marks: Current events.
If we admit the explanation of my dismissal as given by the minister, we are forced to the conclusion that the general staff had reversed its official decision signed on the enclosed document, to allow me to rewrite my examination during the following term and thus has given to the rules governing such examinations a unique interpretation in my case, namely to dismiss me, which, on the face of it, would be a gross injustice.
I wish to thank Le Devoir for its sympathetic view.
Yours very truly,
J. J. Desrochers,
42 St. Jean Baptiste, Beauport East, P.Q.
As is evident from this letter and the attached document, there is a contradiction between the statements of the Minister of National Defence and those of the person involved, Mr. Desrochers. As I do not doubt the latter's word, I am inclined to think the minister has been misled.
A full and impartial inquiry would shed light on that most unfortunate case, and I again request it from the minister.
If the government refuses to do so, and does not care to find and punish the guilty parties, it will be accused of collusion. I would then say that the government is conniving with those bent on destroying national unity, on persecuting Canadians of French descent and on putting my compatriots through a kind of military life that they find unacceptable.
Canada cannot efficiently defend itself without the help of the French element; yet it is humiliating to find how our compatriots are treated in the various services. We must relentlessly insist on our rights so that the bilingual character of our country be recognized, in the armed forces as elsewhere. The constitution that governs us should be respected without our having to protest and complain.
The brigade that will presently serve in Europe will comprise, if I am not mistaken, three infantry battalions and one artillery regiment.
I would like to know the names of the commanding officers of each of these battalions and also whether the orders given to the French-Canadian units will be given in French. I would also like to be assured that the soldiers from my province will not have to submit to the risks and inconvenience of particular affection such as is now the case in Korea where French Canadians are chosen for the most exposed positions in the line and the most unpleasant fatigues.
And will our troops, at last, have a typically Canadian flag, a symbol of a free and sovereign country?
Has the time not yet come to bow to the wishes of those citizens whose one and only country is Canada and to give our country a distinctive ensign, free from all traces of colonialism? I most eagerly hope so as I most eagerly hope and wish for "O Canada" to be officially proclaimed our national anthem.
Mr. Speaker, the other remarks I wish to make today concern the government's foreign policy.
I have often urged in this house that our country send a representative to the Vatican and I have often deplored the fact that Canada remains one of the few nations officially without direct contact with the Holy See.
Newspapers representing all shades of opinion, political and religious, have on various occasions supported this view and all those who are abreast of international affairs or who are concerned about the struggle against communism realize the necessity of such diplomatic representation.
To the reasons already voiced in my previous speeches, I wish to add the unequivocal testimony of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) and I wish to place on Hansard what he wrote on this subject last year. I am quoting from The Ensign:
(Text):
Canada is losing information by not having a diplomatic representative at the Vatican, says James Sinclair, parliamentary assistant to finance minister Abbott, and Liberal member of parliament for Coast-Capilano, B.C. Mr. Sinclair expressed his views in a letter of support to a Catholic women's league subdivision in Vancouver and to various Protestant groups who opposed the appointment. Following is the text of Mr. Sinclair's letter:
"During the ten years that I have been a member of parliament the matter of establishing diplomatic relations with the Vatican has been raised in parliament by private members. It has always been

raised by a Catholic member, and generally opposed by Protestant members; and so had the appearance of being a religious dispute. X had never given the matter much thought, but simply sided with the Protestants on this matter. However, for eight weeks this year I was in Europe settling post-war debts with eight countries, and so had the opportunity to see for myself the work being done by our diplomatic missions, and therefore to realize the importance of that work. Before the last war, Canada maintained missions in the United Kingdom, France, the United States and Japan. As a consequence of the very full part we played in winning the war, we found it necessary to expand the number of these missions, and today we maintain them in the hope that by reaching international understanding between our country and these other countries we may be able to prevent the misunderstandings which lead to international disputes and war. These missions serve two important purposes-to spread correct information about our country and our country's policies, and to gather and transmit the political views and economic problems of these countries to our own government at Ottawa. The gathering of this information is especially important today because of the cold war between the east and the west. It is for this reason we have missions today in Russia, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia, not as an indication that we approve of the government of those countries, but rather because we want to know as much about them and their future policies as possible. With communism fighting a world wide battle against the western world it is especially important for us to have all possible information about the activities of the communist countries and the communist movement.
The Catholic church is fighting communism wherever it exists, and it has no hesitation in accrediting representatives to even the communist governments, so that they may have all possible information. I met the Vatican's representative in Yugoslavia, and learned more from him about the country than I did from any other diplomatic representative in Belgrade.
This, and other experiences, have led me to the belief that Canada is losing information by not having a diplomatic representative at the Vatican, Almost every European nation, Protestant and Catholic, has such representation.
In Canada, where we are comparatively new to the necessity for diplomatic representation, the problem has been discussed almost entirely on religious grounds, and if an appointment were made at this present time, a large proportion of our people would regard it as a religious appointment, and so be strongly opposed to it. Public discussion of this situation, however, will bring about a better understanding, which might eventually lead us to have a representative in the Vatican, as does Protestant England. The most certain way then to assure the people of Canada that our representative was there for diplomatic reasons would be to have such Canadian ministers chosen from non-Catholic faiths.
(Translation):
Following this statement, it is interesting to read what is reported in The Ensign.
(Text):
It is now clear beyond argument that opposition to sending a representative from Canada to the Vatican is based on religious prejudice rather than on factual examination.
Canada is to continue on a colonial status of dependence on London and is to forego advantages of diplomatic exchange with the Vatican, now so widely accepted because the Pope is hot only
The Address-Mr. Gagnon
sovereign ruler of the independent state of Vatican City but is also Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.
The beclouding of a political issue through the injection of religious prejudice naturally arouses more than mere interest amongst those against whom the prejudice is directed.
There is one special remark in Sinclair's statement which must be noted and acted upon. He implies that there is still great ignorance abroad about the Vatican and its role. Do we as citizens not owe it to our less informed citizens, even those now sitting in parliament, to destroy any vestige of ignorance on a subject with which we should be fully familiar?
Times are too serious and the needs of the hour too great to permit us to neglect any advantages we see for our country and the cause of freedom, justice and, above all, true understanding of what we ail, all who believe in God, face from our common godless enemy.
(Translation):
I am sorry to say that Canada was not represented when, in 1950, standing before 37 representatives of great and small nations who had met in his palace to hear an appeal for peace in international relations, the Pope scornfully referred to the attacks launched against the Vatican, adding that while the independent state in his keeping was bereft of military power, its peace potential was incalculable.
I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who was noncommittal when replying to a question I asked him recently about this matter, will soon take a decision and that, in accordance with an old custom of his predecessors, he will follow the example of civilized nations which deem it important to have an ambassador at the Vatican.


Mr. Lesage:: Will the hon. member who has just spoken allow me to ask a question?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Surely.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) claims that Canadians of French descent fighting with the United Nations troops in Korea were being treated with particular affection by the military leaders of these troops.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Is this a speech or a question?


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: It is a question.


Jean Lesage: I shall repeat first what the hon. member has said. The hon. member said that French-speaking Canadians fighting with the United Nations troops in Korea were the victims of particular affection from their leaders who were always sending them to the most dangerous spots and ascribing to them the heaviest and most tedious tasks. Mr. Speaker, this accusation has exceedingly serious consequences. For that reason, I feel we must ask the hon. member to make known his source of information.

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I assert, Mr. Speaker, that my statements concerning the way French-Cana-dians are treated in Korea are true, and that the particulars of the situation were supplied to me, not by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage), who knows nothing about it, but by soldiers recently returned from the Korean front.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Where did you do
your military service?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean Lesage: Since I have not yet taken part in the debate on the speech from the throne I am entitled to speak.
I say that the member for Chicoutimi has not answered my question. He has made a very dangerous statement and I dare him to prove to the house what he has just said. All United Nations forces in Korea have been treated equally and fairly. In my opinion it is rather low to contend that our troops were held in particular affection because they were in more exposed positions than others. One need only consult the casualty lists, Mr. Speaker, knowing of course the proportion of French-speaking Canadians serving in Korea to realize that these casualties are proportionate to the numerical importance of the various language groups in the army. Let us also compare the number of our men with that of the Turkish, Greek, American or French troops! I therefore ask the hon. member for Chicoutimi to withdraw a statement that might have very serious consequences from the international point of view.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing my remarks. I repeat that all I have said is true and based on information given me by soldiers back from the Korean front.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
(Text):


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: know hon. members would like to see the debate conclude very soon, but I have some remarks that I feel I should make at the present time. Like all hon. members, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons), as well as the four new members. I feel sure that the new members won the admiration of all hon. gentlemen in this house for the excellent manner ini which they delivered their madden speeches. I should like also to make a reference to the speeches of two or three other hon. members who have preceded me

in this debate. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) upon his criticism of some of the programs we hear over the C.B.C. Some of these antireligious programs are a disgrace and should not be allowed. I hope those in charge of the C.B.C. will see to it that this sort of program will not be heard in the future.
I desire to congratulate the member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) for his very interesting and homely talk. I did not have the pleasure of being present when he gave it, but I heard a lot of the members praising it, and I read it. I thought it was full of common sense. I was especially struck by his reference to the possibilities of sheep raising in the part of Saskatchewan he represents. It seems an extraordinary thing that a great country like Canada should not be producing far greater quantities of wool than it is today. I was glad to know that in the area in which the hon. member for Maple Creek lives sheep raising is an important industry. It seems to me that far more sheep could be raised in many of the provinces of Canada than are being raised today. This would mean increased wealth for Canada and cheaper clothing for Canadians.
I should like to refer to the speech made by the member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). I think most hon. members were a little surprised to hear he had been a smuggler all his life, and that he intended to continue to be a smuggler. I am sure we appreciate his frankness on this subject, but at the same time when we think of the thousands of people across Canada who are liable to prosecution for smuggling a package of cigarettes, the matter takes on a different aspect. I have often seen men fined heavily for smuggling even a small quantity of cigarettes across the border. I think it is not right for members of the House of Commons to say that sort of thing, create a scandal like that and receive the applause and approval of members of the house.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did he ever bring anything across the border on which the duty was not paid?


William Joseph Browne: Did I ever bring anything across the border on which the duty was not paid? Certainly I did.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Let him who is
without sin cast the first stone.


William Joseph Browne: I was down in the United States a short time ago, and I took advantage of the generous provision-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You are not being as frank as I was.
73S


William Joseph Browne: -I took advantage of the generous provision of our customs law which allows a person to bring in $100 worth of goods duty free.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: May I ask the hon. member another question? Did he ever bring anything in which he did not declare?


William Joseph Browne: I do not
think I should be subjected to questioning-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I do not think you should either.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
think any hon. member should be subjected to cross-examination about his whole lifetime. Even if I did bring anything in, there is such a thing as having done wrong; but it is not necessary for a member of parliament to say that sort of thing here when he knows that the citizens in his own constituency are likely to be arrested today or tomorrow and brought before a court and fined.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Let me put one other question. Is there any harm in a member of parliament telling the truth?


William Joseph Browne: Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member is serious, but there are certain times when it is harmful to tell the truth. The hon. member should have sense enough to know that.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I resent that
statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for St. John's West has the floor.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have that statement withdrawn, for I consider I have as much sense as the hon. member for St. John's West.


William Joseph Browne: What I said was that the hon. member should have enough sense. Now I shall say he has not got enough sense.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: On a point of privilege, I should like to have that statement withdrawn. I insist upon it being withdrawn, because I believe I have as much sense as the hon. member for St. John's West. I have been frank and honest in my statements, and speaking frankly I do not think he has been.


William Joseph Browne: What I intended to point out was that the policy the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) recommended to the government was to let down tariffs and take off customs duties on goods coming from the United States, and in three months, he said, the problem of the high cost of living would be solved.
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne


Andrew Wesley Stuart: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I did not say anything of the kind.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I think there should be some limit to these interruptions.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for St. John's West has the floor.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: -on a point of privilege again, may I say that I did not make that statement that has been attributed to me by the hon. member for St. John's West.


William Joseph Browne: What did you say?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I did not make that statement, and I do not want him to put it on record that I did.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I was present and heard the hon. member; and that is certainly the effect of what he said, that the government should take off the duty on goods coming in from the United States.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Correct.


William Joseph Browne: I just want to draw to the attention of the house the fact that we import about $1,500 million worth of goods a year from the United States, upon which a large amount of customs duty is paid. I suppose the customs duties collected by the Canadian government must run into an amount of about $250 million. I do not know how much is collected from the United States, but there must be a substantial proportion of that amount. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance is present in the chamber listening to what is being said. Would he approve such a policy? What would the other countries of the commonwealth say? They would say:	What? You are going to make a
special friend of the United States and let their goods in free? What about the rest of the world? The United States is the greatest country in the world at the present time. You are going to help her to become greater; you are going to throw your doors open to the United States, and are not going to give us any chance. What about the people in Canada who are working in factories that were built up by this protection? Are we going to throw the doors open to allow foreign goods to come into this country? Such a suggestion is fantastic and does not deserve serious consideration for a moment. The hon. member has proved himself to be a free trader, the only one

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne left in his party which at one time stood for free trade. I do not think there are many free traders left in the world.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Here is one.


William Joseph Browne: The great Liberal party in England has gone down the drain, although it was built up on that policy.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It has not gone down the drain in Canada.


William Joseph Browne: 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we will proceed with the motion of the Minister of Justice to set up a committee concerning price maintenance and combines legislation. Then we will continue to study Bill No. 13 to provide for old age security; also resolutions Nos. 7, 8 and 10 on today's order paper.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
739
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 6, 1951